Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 111


Bitul B’rov
Shiur 1- Packet 1 - Sep. 7 (W) YD 109

1) Rov heter, 2) miut issur and 3) the issur can’t be nikkar to be mutar.

There are two types of ta’aroves-

a) lach b’lach (physically mixed together) and
b) yuvesh b’yuvesh (physically separate). It doesn’t matter where the pieces of meat are,
as long as they create a safek (even in my three homes- under the umbrella of my safek).

Acharei Rabim Lehatot

Makor for Bitul B’rov: Shemot (23,2) Acharei Rabim Lehatot
The pashut pshat is that you shouldn’t follow the majority to do wrong, but the Rishonim
understand the posuk to mean that you DO follow the rabim.

Chullin 11a (p4)- uses the pasuk for “azlenan busar ruba”- I find meat in the street
where there are 9 kosher butchers and one tref butcher and it’s mutar.
This is different from bitul b’rov which is a mixture.

Rashi- Chullin 98b (p3)- says that we use Acharei Harabim Lehatot to teach that we
follow the majority. Rashi is a chiddush to use this possuk to deal with bitul b’rov.

Ruba d’issa kamun- the 9 butcher shops and 1 tref, all the shops are extant, so I can say
the piece is seen basar rov and is mutar.
Ruba d’lessa kamun- someone kills another person and the B”D asks whether the
person killed was a trefah in the place where he was killed. This is judged based upon the
statistical rov of most people b/c most people don’t have trefot.

Rav Chaim (P8) and R’ Shimon Shkupp- explain how Rashi can use this posuk.
B”D is the source of both dinim and there are two steps in the B”D process-
1) determine the p’sak- 2:1, 2) but still we need a B”D of 3 and we only have 2, so now it
must be that we use rov to say that it’s as if all 3 agree to this ruling.
These two processes are automatically interconnected in the process of B”D- the judges
vote which is 1) azlenan busar ruba and then 2) they use rov and the 3 arguing judges are
considered 3 concurring judges b/c the majority of judges (the 2) swallow up the minority
(the 1) to make it like it is unanimous. [Tos. in B”K.]

-- This Rashi is an explanation for the many gemaras that assumes that bitul rov
applies by taaroves.

One person eating the Bitul B’rov

I) Rosh Chullin (p5) – you can eat all 3 pieces of the taaroves together b/c the 3rd piece of
meat is “changed to muttar”- [nis-hapech leheos hetter].

Shita”M in B”M (p7)- by Takfa Kohen by maser behaima (after the animal was counted
then the animal jumped back in and now they are all patur). Tosefos asks there- why
doesn’t batel b’rov! apply (the Rosh’s definition of batel b’rov) and there should still be a
chiuv to count the rest. The S”M quotes the Rosh- it is unclear what the Rosh would say
D’var Abraham- is a possible answer for the Rosh: the D”A made a famous comment
regarding Sefira that the reason why we don’t count each day of sefirah as a safek yom is
b/c a count must be b’vadaus.
By takfah kohen as well, each animal will not be vadai the 10th one.

R’ Shimon Schkup- Shaare Yosher (p10-11)- based upon the Rosh the issur was
nehpach l’heos heter. RS”S felt that nehpach l’heos only applies by a case of bitul b’rov
but not by azlenan busar ruba where he says that an averah b’shogeg was done! The fact
that you used rov doesn’t undermine the fact that you did an averah and you need
[But doesn’t the Torah say that it is mutar?- The food can be assur, but muttar to eat]

II) Rashba (p12) argues with the Rosh- you can eat each piece by itself, but not all of
them together. You can always say that the other piece was kosher.

Ra’ah in Bedek Ha-Bais (p12)- argues with the Rashba’s svara b/c l’maskanah “he ate
the piece of tref,” so what type of game is this! He is not happy with the notion that a
person can say that “this is not the tref piece” and then eat all three of the pieces.

III) Tosefos Rid (p16)- has a third opinion. He says that one person can’t eat all three
pieces, but at least two people must eat them, so we don’t say that any person ate the issur
b’vadaus (see Ra’ah). He therefore disagrees with the Rashba.

Proofs for Tosefos Rid

A) B”B (31b)- 2 groups of witnesses testify about a certain situation and each set directly
contradicts the facts stated by the other group (a’dim macheshim). We know in this case
that one group is lying, but B”D doesn’t know which group is lying.
Q) What does B”D do in future din torah b/c both groups are safek pasul, does this
undermine their chezkas kashrut?
A) 1) some say- that you can let a person from group A or group B testify, but not
2) some- you can’t let either testify to remove money that someone has a chazakah on.

B) Pesachim 10a (p15)- 2 streets- one is tahor and one is tameh and both are in reshus
ha-rabim. If one person goes down one of the streets and another person goes down the
other street (one obviously being tameh) if both come to ask the Rabbi if they are tahor at

the same time then he can’t say they are both tahor, but if they come one after the next
then he can tell them both that they aren’t tameh from a safek.

Tosefot Rid says that if a person ate all three pieces these gemaras prove that this person
is vaday eating the issur and therefore the Torah can’t be permitting this scenario. He
therefore argues with the Rashba- and feels this is m’deoritta.

IIIB) Tosefot Chullin 100a (d’h Beriah)- says that different people should eat the 3
pieces and seems that this is only m’derabanan.
S’mag- seems to say that it is a chumrah and the chiuv for two people to eat the pieces is
only m’derabanan.

Haramah- taking out one piece for the kohen

Mishna Arlah- (p19-21) says you need to take one of them away as the “assur piece” to
give to the kohen.
Yerushalmi (p22)- the reason to remove one of the fruits of the mutar ta’aroves is not
because bitul requires the “attribution to something else.” By terumah, the food belongs
to the kohen and they deserve their money and you can’t do bitul on the money of
someone else, so you must repay the kohen. But, by a taaroves of issur there would not
need ha’aramah.

IV) Rashi- A”Z 74a- says that we can be ma’arim by things other than terumah and he
requires this by bitul.
Maharam M’Rutenburg- would throw one of the pieces away, but that was because he
was a t’zaddik. Really he didn’t have to do that, but he had extra perishut.

Rosh (p24/5)- says he doesn’t know where haramah would apply beyond a case of gezel
hashevet (from the kohen).

--Sha’areh Durah-(p26) you don’t need to be machmir and throw one piece away, like
Tosefot/ S’mag, but not the Rashi.
--S”A 109 (p27-29)- quotes Rashba, Tosefot/S’mag.
--Rama says do Tosefot and quotes the Maharam (lechumrah).

Is this machlokes [Rosh/Rashba] on a deoritta or derabanan level?

1) Pri Megadim (p13)- Rashba agrees with the Rosh m’deoritta and this is only a
machlokes m’derabanan. This is the pashut pshat in the machlokes.
2) Tosefos Rid/[Ra’ah (perhaps)]- felt that the Rashba made his statement on a deoritta

If you don’t eat the treif piece because you “don’t want to eat treif”
Today, everyone uses the kullos of rov by milk: that most cows aren’t treif. [According to
Rav Shimon Schupp you didn’t do an averah/ using the Rosh.]

Shalah- (p30)- quotes a Gemara B’rachot that a person who says “I just won’t eat it” is
lesser than a person who goes through the area and finds a reliable heter and then eats it.
He says you aren’t a Moreh Horaah to be a machmir. You shouldn’t be machmir.
B’nei Yissaschar-(p31) extends the Shalah to bitul and says that a person can eat the
taaroves and it helps in Olam Habah (to fix the kleepot). You shouldn’t be machmir.
Q) What about the gemara Chullin which says not to eat an animal that the Rabbis had to
paskin on?
A) He says that this gemara is talking about when a svarah was used, but not one that
there was a heter on them.

Rabenu Yonah- Issur V’heter- don’t add to the trefot of chazal if you don’t have to, but
if you want to be machmir and add to the chachamim, then you have that right. You
should stay away from something that is “shady.” You can be machmir.
Pischei Teshuva (Soles Limnucha) quotes Issur Veher, but then quotes others that say
that it is ‘minus.’ You shouldn’t be machmir.

Maharam Merutenberg’s Shut- (p34)- when he was younger he used to make fun of
the people who waited between milk and meat. He then found a piece of cheese in his
mouth and then he decided to wait. You can be machmir.

Maharshal- says it is minus to be machmir, but if it happened to you then you can add
onto yourself (and he agrees with the youthful Maharam). You shouldn’t be machmir

Maharsham- if something is going to be muttar tomorrow then you can’t eat it today, but
if it won’t be mutar, then you can eat it (DSL”M-davar sheyesh lo matirim).
Q) The Maharsham doesn’t understand- if bitul is a good heter, why do you need to wait
and “eat it b’heter?”
A) He thinks from DSL”M that you could think that there is a problem (like the Issur
V’heter) and could be machmir. You can be machmir.

Rav Schachter- sardines: some are packaged by machine and some are packaged by
hand. The ones that are packaged by machine chop off the stomach and the ones
packaged by hand sometimes contain stomachs with non-kosher fish.
PSAK: the sardine cans that are already in the public are batel chad b’trei. In the future
they will ensure that all the sardines have their stomachs cut off. He assumes that you
can’t advertise that something is kosher if a person is using kulot.

Yedeas Hata’aroves
Shiur 2/ Sept 12- (M) Packet 2

Bitul b’rov- you need to have yedeas hata’aroves in order for something to be batel or
else there is no din bitul.

Mishna Terumot- (5,8)- Terumah falls into 100 Chullin and you were not able to take
one random piece out of the mixture to give to the Kohen (gezel hashevet) when another
piece of Terumah fell into the mixture, so now you have 2:100.
Q) Is there a din bitul and what happens to the issur terumah (ie does it turn into heter)?
A) T”K- The first isn’t batel and surely not the second piece.
A2) R’ Shimon permits the two pieces.

What is the machlokes b/t TK and RS?

Rav Mebartenura (p1)- says that R’ Shimon’s heter is only when there is yedeas
hata’aroves (YT), but if there is no YT then there is surely no bitul. And, if there is
yedea, but the Jew didn’t have the opportunity to get a piece out b/f the next one fell in
then the machlokes is whether the bitul is completed if you didn’t do ha’aramah (taking
out a piece for the kohen). R”S says that the attempt to remove one piece is enough.
Tosefta Terumot (6,6) (p3) (the source of this Bartenura)- quotes this machlokes and
adds the language of yedea.
Mishna Rishona (p1-2)- based upon the Tosefta- would say this svara is only by terumah
and not by other issurim.

Rambam- Hil. Terumot (13,6)- also uses this logic of yedea (paskins like R”S).
Ra’avad- says that the Rambam is following a shitah yechidah (R”S) and he thinks that
Rambam should follow T”K.

Yerushalmi- Urlah- (11a-11b) (5-6) Halacha 1- this din of yedia is discussed.

This means that the same metzios can be tref w/o yedea and kosher w/ yedea. Perhaps
this is a special din by terumah b/c you need ha’aramah and the only way to get to
ha’aramah is to have yedea, but in the other areas of issur where there is no din of
ha’aramah, then there would be an automatic bitul.

Extension of yedea beyond terumah

Rosh- (p7) is the first to extend yedea beyond terumah to the rest of the issurim.
What is the svara of the Rosh?

R’ Shimon Schkup (Sha’arei Yosher) (p9)- a ta’aroves needs to be 1) mixed together

(meurov), 2) ladas ha-safek and 3) miut issur. Perhaps until you know that the issur is
there, then there is no ta’aroves yet b/c a ta’aroves is formed by the safek of the
individual, so before he has a yedea there is no ta’aroves and therefore it can’t become
batel. This would only be by yavesh b-yavesh.

By lach b’lach this would NOT be true, b/c you don’t need a yedea to create this
ta’aroves. Here, the physical ta’aroves exists before the yedea.

Bitul is a clash b/t issur and heter. If there is no yedea then we don’t view it as issur and
heter. He says that the yedea creates the clash that was previously there, but is
meaningless if it wasn’t known beforehand.

Rav Solovechick- the yedea creates the ledas hasafek (safek about what to do now, and
after it is done then there is no safek). The Jew has to know about it to create a ledas
hasafek for the bitul to take affect.

Ra’ah- permits adding to 60 once the mixture was batel yavesh b-yavesh.

What if there is a bitul yavesh b’yavesh and then the taaroves is cooked?

Shulchan Aruch (109,2) (p13) says that if you want to cook the taaroves after the issur is
batel then you need 60, even if you’ll eat them separately, because now it’s a case of
nesinas taam. You’re allowed to add to it before you cook them to make sure there that
it’s BS (Ra’ah).
Rema quotes the Rosh’s opinion that if you have knowledge and are mevatel the taaroves
then you can eat it all after you cook it even if there isn’t 60. The Remah will only allow
this b’makom hefsed.

Cooking in 2 pots according to the Rashba b/f yedea

Shach- (109,12) says that once you have yedea, the taaroves is mutar m’deoritta and
after the yedea you can cook the taaroves in 2 pots. If the taaroves was cooked b/f yedea
then there is a safek deoritta and we are machmir even according to the Rashba.
Bach- (p12) [d”h p’sak] permits a person to cook the taaroves in 2 pots even before
there was yedea. You need yedea, but you don’t need the yedea to come before the
bishul. [Yediah can’t be a chiuv deoritta or else the cooking would undermine any
subsequent bitul.]
Maharam Shick- says that perhaps the Bach holds that yedea is only a din derabanan
[or that yedea isn’t needed by taaroves.]
R’ Simon- doesn’t know if this Maharam Shick is correct.

Is yedeah a din deoritta or derabanan?

Shach says this din is deoritta (or a chumrah derabanan in the Rashba-?)
Bach says it is derabanan.
Minchat Yaakov/Shulchan Aruch Harav (p15) explicitly says that yedea is a din
derabanan [b/c if it was a deoritta then the requirement of yedea would be a necessity b/f

Darchei Teshuva quotes R’ Shlomo Kluger (Shut) from Tuv Tam L’Daas- (p18-19)-
Shochtim get hungry and they cut off a part of meat for themselves and they figure that
there will probably be a few trefot with what they are shechting and then they throw away

a few for tarfut. If they later find a trefah, then they have already been mevatel some and
they did ha’aramah.
Q) If they already cooked it in their pots and they didn’t have yedea beforehand, what
they ate was b’shogeg, but should the vessels be kashered b/c there was no yedea?
A) R’ Shlomo says that he will be melamed zechus on the shochtim who take food before
yedea. If you have no clue, then there is a lack of yedea, but here the shochtim did a
maaseh of throwing away some pieces in case there should be some trefah, then it is as if
there was yedea. Lack of knowledge means you have no clue. Here, they suspect it’ll
happen and they do a maaseh because of it and therefore they have knowledge.
Therefore, the pots aren’t tref.

Mekor Chaim- (sefer Nesevot on Pesach)- chametz is an issur mashehu (any part) ON
PESACH, but if it was mixed b/f Pesach then it is considered batel.
What happens if you didn’t have a yedeas ta’aroves until Pesach already began?
He has a safek about this.

Nikkar HaIssur
Shiur 3/ Sept 14- (W) Packet 3

Nikkar HaIssur- If you have a vat of meat and you can recognize the tref meat, there is
no bitul ha-issur. This is a din deoritta according to R’ Simon.

What if you have the means to extract the issur- are you obligated to make it nikkar
or is it mutar?

Ramah (98,4) (p5)- if chelev (issur karet) fell into a dish of 60: The Ramah says you
must add cold water to chill the dish and get the chelev out when it congeals and “it is as
if you see it.” [If it isn’t 1:60 then the ability to take it out doesn’t help b/c the meat is
already tref and the taam extends throughout.]

Is the requirement a chiuv deoritta, derabanan or chumrah b’alma?

Ramah quotes Mordechai in the name of the Rokeach- (p1)- if chelev fell into a pot
then pour in cold water and remove the chelev.
(If you can’t find the Rokeach, go to the Sefer HaAssufot, the talmid of the Rokeach).
Sefer HaAssufot- there are “anshe ma’aseh” who will pour in cold water and get it out.
This is definitely not a chiuv!
Issur V’heter-(p3) quotes the Raavan and says that it is a “mitzvah” to pour in cold
water, but not a chiuv.
[This effects the bugs in the NYC water which can be removed with a filter.]

Liquids and removing issur

Bach- (98,4) (p4)- says that this can help the mixture even when there is NOT 1:60.
Shach- (98,16) asks how the removal of the chelev can help the ratio get to 1:60 and he

Rav Moshe says that by lach, the Taam and Mamashut are the same. Whatever liquid (ie
chelev) you take out of the pot, we assume you have taken out that amount of taam as
Imrei Baruch/ A”Hashulchan- (p7)- generally we are machmir, but by liquids: the
taam and the mamushut are the same thing and therefore should you be able to get out
the actual liquid then you are also getting the taam as well and then the shiur of 1:60 is
less. Therefore he holds that even less than 60 is enough for bitul.

R’ Zimmerman quotes Tosfot Chadashim who uses a Mishna in Orlah to prove that if
you can extract an issur (even if you can’t see it) than it’s batel.

Deoritta or Derabanan
I) Plesi-(p11) Hefsed- if the water will ruin the food then we don’t apply this halacha. If
you can get rid of it then you should (like a DSL”M).
Baadei HaShulchan- if it is a din deoritta then you must pour in the water, but if it will
be ruined then you don’t have to. This seems to be a din derabanan.

II) Gileon Maharsha- (p5)- nikkar is a din deoritta.
Ran- (p9) proof to GM from Sukkah: if you are building the sukkah under a tree then you
can bend the tree onto the sukkah top and mix the tree branches with other branches and
be mebatel the tree branches.
Q) It is nikkar ha-issur and this is a din deoritta that it is not batel!!
Ran says that this isn’t a real bitul, but it is a special din by schach b/c you only need
50% kasher schach to bad schach. This has nothing to do with the general bitul of the rest
of the Torah [where there is a din of nikkar] b/c here is nikar ha-issur. The Ran’s question
is by a din deoritta and he feels that nikkar would be a problem.

Taz is angry at the L’vush- L’vush asked a question about the din bitul in sukkah and he
said that nikar is only assur m’derabanan. The Taz said that this is not worthy of being
written and it is definetly deoritta.
Avichai: The machlokes can be what the level of “nikkar” is needed to create a chiuv to
remove the issur on a deoritta level.

DSLM by utensils
EX: If the cleaning lady took a tref spoon and put it back into the regular spoons

I) Hefsed removes kelim from DSLM status

Rashba- Bais HaKatzar (p12-3) this is YBY and chad b-trei, so it’s batel b’rov.
BUT, this is a DSLM b/c you can kasher the spoons!
He says that anything you have to pay money for or have a hefsed it isn’t a DSLM, b/c a
DSL”M is something that you don’t pay anything to finish and perhaps you don’t need to
do the hagalah b/c of the issur nikar either (Plesi above).
S”A- (102,3)- quotes the Rashba.

Ra’ah- Bedek Habais- (p13)- [argues with Rashba]. If a tref spoon gets mixed in to
other spoons (even if it’s not a DSLM) it is considered “nikkar ha’issur” b/c hagalah can
remove the issur and therefore this is a deoritta question b/c “you can take the issur out
by kashering every one of the spoons.”

Boaz- quotes the mishna in Meilah (6,6) that if you have a piggybank and one quarter
that had kedusha fell into the other quarters and then someone spent the first quarter,
R”Ak says that you are Maal.
Q) After the first coin was spent, there should be a bitul chad b’trei and the coins should
be batel deoritta! B/C:
1) Hekdesh is a DSL”M (being podeh)- but here it is a deoritta din and DSLM isn’t an
issur deoritta
2) The coin can be davar chashuv- that is also not a deoritta
A1) Boaz says the lack of bitul must be only m’derabanan or else he can’t understand it.
A2) Tosefot Chadashim- it’s possible that this mishna is like R”Y about min b’mino.
Problem: the Rambam quotes this Mishna and he doesn’t hold like R”Y.
A3) Over here you can be podeh and can extract it even though it’s not visible! This
pshat in the mishna is like the Ra’ah that removing an issur nikkar is a deoritta din!
Problem: we hold like the Rashba.

Darkei Teshuva (p17) [more machmir] even if there’s Tircha Gedolah than you still
need to take out the issur.

II) Hefsed muat is DSLM

Maharil Shut (in Shach) argues with Rashba and says a hefsed muat is still a DSL”M.
He also says that this case IS a DSLM m’deoritta, b/c waiting 24 hours also creates
bitul automatically, and you then come to a question only m’derabanan.
R’ Solevechik- wanted to say that today where there is little effort to get water perhaps
kashering is a DSL”M. [R’ Simon said that the Rav was mistaken about his facts
concerning that time period and the level of effort.]

III) The heter must come m’meila

Shach- (102,8) quotes the Maharshal- says that this case is NOT a DSLM case anyway
b/c DSLM must come m’meila and by hagalah you need to do an action. In this case
where the hefsed is small a person must do hagalah b/c of nikkar.

IV) Throw out a kli

Bach- throws out one kli (like Maharam), but we don’t say you have to throw out a kli.

Taam K’Ikkar (1)
Shiur 4/ Sept 19- (M) Packet 4

Taam K’ikkar- 1) meat cooked with vegetables and then removed OR 2) when the
meatball is not b’ein and is nisbatel b’rov, but still needs 60 b/c of taam k’ikkar.

I: Mishras
Bamidbar (6, 1-3) (p1-2)- a Nazir can’t have grape products or “mishras anavim.”
Rashi- “Mishras” means- anything that grapes are soaked in for a certain amount of time
b/c of the grape taste in the water.

Pesachim 43b-44a (p3) Mishras- is one of the sources of taam k’ikkar b/c you aren’t
consuming the actual grape, only the taam of the grape. This is considered as if you are
eating the actual issur. The gemara says that this din is not only by nazir, but is applied to
all issurim from a kal v’chomer with urlah and kelaim (b/c you could’ve said that mishras
is only applied to nazir where mishras is assur b/c of grapes, a special din by nazir).

43b- some say mishras is NOT used to learn the din of taam k’ikkar, but heter mitztaref
l’issur (you only get makkos if you eat a k’zais of issur, but if you eat half k’zais issur
plus half k’zais of kosher food, the heter food connects with the issur to make the eater
obligated to lashes… and we don’t hold this way.) This is learned from mishras where the
bread is dipped into thick wine and b/t the wine and the bread you had a k’zais.

II: Basar B’chalav

44b- (p5) Those opinions (like R”Ak) that learn heter hamitztaref from mishras, have to
learn TKI from a different place, perhaps this is from basar b’chalav. The milk goes
inside the meat and is not b’ein so it assumed TKI or else there would be no din of B”B.

Question: Why didn’t the chachamim learn out taam k’ikkar from mishras and not b”b?
Answer: B/c B”B is a chiddush that two kosher ingredients cause tref and perhaps you
can’t learn to the rest of the Torah.
Question: By Kelaim we have the same chiddush and we teach from it. [Tosefos A”Z]
Answer: B”B- you need milk in the meat only when there is derech bishul. This is NOT
just a din in taam, but only taam by bishul.
B”B is then a chiddush and taam k’ikkar can’t be prohibited from this.
Question: Therefore, R”Ak can’t learn from mishras or B”B, so how does he learn that
taam k’ikkar is assur m’deoritta?
III: Giuli Midian
Reply: R”Ak will learn from the “giuli midian”- hechsher kalim shows that the taam in
the pot will be m’assur kalim/food.
So why don’t others learn from giuli midian?
Answer: Taam must add a positive taste to the food and not a taam pagum and after 24
hours the taam is not good. Even w/in 24 hours there is some pagum and still the Torah
was m’assur, so perhaps we can’t extend this issur to other dinim.
R”A- says it isn’t pagum

IV: Chatas
Vayikra (6,11)– “kol asher yigah buhem yikdash”- this only applies when there is a heat
element. The taam if the korban goes into the other food and you must do to the other
food item whatever the din of the korban does.
Zevachim 97b- (p8)- quotes this pasuk. The taam gives it status.

V: Z’roah B’shela
Bamidbar (6,13-20) (p9-10) zroah b’shela: the kohen gets the z’roah and the nazir gets
the rest.
Chullin 98a- the z’roah goes to the kohen, but first you cook it with the rest of the ram
and then the taam will go into the food of the nazir. The gemara learns that the taam is
not tref b/c the taam is batel in the volume of the rest of the ram, 1:60 or 1:100.

Example: if Urlah (orange juice) falls into water- we have a rov, but taam k’ikkar says
that we still will taste the urlah in the mixture. We say that until there is 60 times the
issur, we assume that you will taste the taam even with the bitul rov.

Chullin 98b- both bitul 60 and 100 are from zroah b’shaela.
Tosefos- says that z’roah b’shela and the din of 60 is a kabalah and Z”B is only an
ashmachta. The chachamim had a mesorah that most foods lose there taste in 60.

Is taam k’ikkar a derabanan or a d’eoritta?

Rashi- taam k’ikkar is a derabanan: by kudshim (Rava) taam is assur even 1000:1
m’deoritta, but by chullin and z’roah it is 60:1 m’derabanan. Rashi says that all the
sources of taam k’ikkar are only an asmachta. You are only liable for the deoritta if you
eat the real thing and not the taam.
60 is also mederabanan- b/c the taam is only derabanan by even min b’sheano mino. The
deorittas are by nazir and kudshim. (It is possible that 60 is deoritta.)
Shitah Mekubetzes- says that Rashi doesn’t hold that the shiur 60 is deoritta.
Rabbi Maybruch- wanted to say that Rashi could say that 60 is a deoritta according to
Rashi b/c Rashi doesn’t use 60 as a shiur of taam, but of a separate shiur of bitul, so TKI
can be a derabanan and 60 can be a deoritta.

DEORITTA shitahs that are m’chalek:

Rosh (p13-4) quotes many shittos who say taam k’ikkar is deoritta like R”T.

Nafka Mina b/t Rashi and R”T and his colleagues- in Rashba Toras HaBais (p15)- if I
am going to measure a pot and I go to measure it and it spills. The question is whether 60
is a deoritta or a d’rabanan. If there is a safek 60, this machlokes is crucial.

Darchei Moshe- quotes:

Sefer Terumah- We are noheg like R”T.
Ra’aviah- says that we hold like Rashi.
And we hold like R”T.

S”A (98,2)- says that taam k’ikkar is a din deoritta and then 60 is deoritta and safek 60 is
deoritta lechumrah.

Chicken and Milk Nishapech

Ramah Toras Chatas (quoting from Issur V’heter- Ra’ah)- chicken and milk mixed and
nishpach: we have a safek about 60. It would seem to be a derabanan and should be
l’kulah, but the Ra’ah says should be treated as a deoritta.
Shach - says that the whole issur is only a derabanan how can we say that we should be
machmir and treat it like a deoritta. Shach says that in the Issur V’heter he says that
chicken is really a deoritta and therefore chicken is a safek deoritta (and that is what the
Ra’ah must hold).
Taz- (98,6) (p22)- quotes the Ramah and says that he won’t throw away this shittah. He
says that the chachamim were giving chizuk to their words, where in many areas the
chachamim gave many extra chumros to chicken as if it was a deoritta.
Badei HaShulchan- holds like the Shach, but is you want to be machmir like the Taz
then you can (tuvoh alav bracha).

Daas Shotim
S”A (98,3)- what if you the mixture spills and you don’t know how to measure, that is
not permitted to be a safek 60 and we are machmir.
Taz (98,6) calls this a “daas shotim” from the Mordechai.

Rashi v. R”T l’ma’aseh

Afikei Yam- (p23) quotes the Rosh (Yomah)- a choleh sb”sakanah on Shabbas who
needs to eat meat and either 1) shecht the animal outside or 2) ask the gentile next door
for tref meat.
Most Rishonim say that you shecht for him b/c 1) issurim are hutar on shabbas for the
choleh and 2) nevelah is many issurim.

What about Shabbas vs. tref or kosher Chicken soup? Here the question is here it is only
taam which is a d’rabanan according to Rashi, so he relied upon Rashi.
Q) But don’t we hold that taam k’ikkar is a deoritta? so he went to R’ Simcha Zelig. R’
Chayim Solovechik said that it was muttar, but R’ Simcha Zelig remembered the
teshuvah of the Givos O’lom that we don’t hold like R”T l’kullah. If Rashi is the more
machmir opinion then we should hold like Rashi.

This p’sak is not a vadai like R”T, but merely l’chumrah, so on Shabbas where R”T
would be a kulah we have to be somech on Rashi.

Pri Migadim (p24)- says that we paskin like R”T in vadaos, we will even use it l’kulah.
Pri Migadim (p26) in Shaar Ta’aruvos- asks the question about whether it is lechumrah
and perhaps this is what the Rashba is saying.
Darkei Moshe- the minhag is like R”T (l’chumrah).
We generally hold like R”T even l’kullah.

Taam K’Ikkar (2)
Shiur 5/ Sept 22- (W) Packet 5

Avodah Zara (67a)- k’zais b’chedei achilas pras- (like matzoh on pesach)
Pras- is a prusa, a half of a loaf of bread. A loaf can be 6 or 8 eggs, so a pras is 3
(Rambam) or 4 eggs. [2kzais=1egg] This means on Pesach to be yozeh the mitzvah of
matzoh, one would need to eat one k’zais in the amount of time that a person can eat 3
eggs worth.

The Gemara will say in addition to 1:2 (Rov) and 1:60 (Shishim), there is also a middle
category/shiur of 1:1-6 is KBAP and 1:7-59 is NOT KBAP. In every 3/4 eggs worth
you’ll get a kzais of chelev.
Avodah Zarah (67a-b) says if it is KBAP and you eat the taaroves it is called “taam
umamasho” and you get malkut. Greater than that, it is assur but you do NOT get
malkut. What does this mean?
[Avichai: Where is the deoritta source for kbap? Does everyone hold of it?
KBAP is a HLM (halacha l’moshe) that teaches that anything eaten w/in the time
required to eat a pras is considered as having been eaten as one act of eating. Everyone
holds of it.]

Three shiurim of bitul of taaroves:

1) 1:2- rov
2) 2-6 is also a shiur of bitul, KBAP.
3) 60
There is a different halacha depending on the category that you are in.

1) Rambam- Maachalos Asuros (15, 1-6) (p7)-

a) 1:2- bitul rov by all cases except L”L MBS”M.
b) 1:6- by L”L MBS”M the “rov” is 6 or else the mixture is not batel (m’deoritta) and if
a person eats a whole pras then he gets malkos. (This can be an issur b’ain or TKI).
c) 1:60- up to 60 from 6 is an issur derabanan and you can’t get malkos.
The Gemara in Avodah Zarah means that if you eat the shiur than you get malkut but in
the second case you do not eat the shiur so you don’t get malkut.

2) R’ Chaim Kohen in Rosh Chullin (Perek 7) (p11)-

There are 3 categories, but all are deoritta until 60 and any safek is a safek deoritta.
a) 1:2- Min b’mino chad b’trei works, but not by MBS”M LB”L.
b) 1:6- if the issur’s density is up to 1:6 all you need to eat is one k’zais to get malkos
by mbs”m lb”l b/c it is so densely assur and therefore the heter is “nishapech l’issur”
(vs. Rambam who says that you must eat the whole pras).
c) 1:60- is a deoritta, but the heter isn’t nishapech therefore there is no malkos (vs.
Rambam- only derabanan).

In the first case in A”Z you ate a kezayit of Taarovet which was KBAP but in the second
case it was NOT KBAP. In that case it is assur but you don’t get malkut.

3) R’ Taam in Rosh (p11)- TKI is deoritta and all cases are heter nishapech l’issur.
a) 1:2- Min b’mino chad b’trei works.
b) 1:6- see 1:60
c) 1:60- mbs”m lb”l: even at this stage heter is nishapech l’hios issur and not only “not
batel!” Therefore, if one eats one k’zais they get malkos at any point and it is always a
safek deoritta. (R’ Chaim said that you must eat a kzais at less than 1:6.)

A”Z is discussing mb”m b’ain (so there is no bitul) and you must eat a kzais to get
malkos or else you didn’t eat enough issur to get malkos. This gemara has nothing to do
with TKI b/c it is a case of mb”m.
R”T says that A”Z is talking about min b’mino in a case where tref meat mixes with the
other meat, but you see the tref meat and there is no din bitul.
R’ Yochanan is saying that you must eat a k’zais to get malkos. If you eat the mixture by
scooping out and eating the ta’aroves you won’t get a lot of the issur (jellybeans) and
therefore you won’t be able to eat a k’zais of the issur in k’dai achilas pras. This gemara
has nothing to do with taam k’ikkar and it is min b’mino.
[Avichai: Why only a kzais and not the whole pras? B/c the heter is nishapech.]

4) Rashi- you only need a rov m’deoritta and the rest is an asmachta (TKI is a derabanan)
and therefore he’ll learn A”Z as a case of b’ain. The question is whether you can eat the
requisite amount of issur in the time required to create a chiuv malkos.
The Rambam’s derabanan is 6-60 and Rashi’s is from 2-60. He will learn the Gemara
Avodah Zarah similar to R’ Tam.

5) Tosefos (p3)- quotes R’ Yosef M’Orlians- really deoritta 2:1 is batel. TKI is assur
from giluy midyan (“taaveru bu’aish”), so if you eat the taaroves then you are o’ver on
an assay and you will NEVER get malkos b/c it is an issur assey.
R”T- argues with the R’ Yosef b/c: the assay is saying, if you delete ‘rov’ based upon
taam then you have an issur of nevelah.
Like pisulei mikdashim- see Tosefos Chullin. This is a case of a 1) rule (nivelah), 2) then
there is an exception (rov), 3) and then there is an exception to the exception (giuli
midian), so do we go back to the original rule or do we just have the assay of the 3)
exception to the exception.
[The animal was supposed to be brought as a korban and it has the dinim of a korban, the
animal got a mum and couldn’t be used for a korban anymore, then the posuk says that
you can “eat it.” In this case the original issur of gizah and avodah still apply even though
“tizbach” doesn’t apply anymore. This is a case of a lav with a heter and then the original
lav still stays and you can get malkos for that.]

Baal HaMaor (p28)- the gemara in Pesachim (44b) says that we learn TKI deoritta to kol
haTorah from a kal v’chomer from nazir, if nazir that has an issur that is not an issur
olam or an issur hana’ah that it has TKI, then all the rest of the issurim which are l’olam
would also have the din of TKI.
BUT, you can’t get malkos from a kal v’chomer, “ein onshim,” therefore you can’t get
malkos for TKI.
Rashba- has a different way to understand this.

Rashi is Rambam

Beis Yosef (98) (p4)- claims that Rashi and the Rambam are the same. This means that
Rashi would also say lb”l mbs”m is an issur deoritta up to KBAP.
Minchas Kohen (p5)- quotes B”Y and argued like we originally said. Rashi would hold
that even L”BL MBS”M by b’ain it is batel brov.

Rabbenu Taam is R’ Chaim Kohen

Tur (98) (p12)- quotes the shittah of R’ Chaim Kohen and says that Rabbenu Taam said
this shittah, that if you have 1:6 then you get malkos.
B”Y- asks why he quotes R’ Chaim Kohen, and says that they really agree that R”T
would only say nishapech up to KBAP and not like the Rosh says.
Minchas Kohen (p14-15)- challenges this B”Y b/c R”T says nishapech even with
greater that 1:6.
Vilna Goan- (p17) calls the Tur a taus sofer.

Chatzi Zais
Heter mitztaref l’issur: if a person eats a half k’zais he is not given malkos. If this fell
into a taaroves w/o 60 times its status, does the half k’zais make the rest of the k’zais
assur acc. to R”T?
According to R”T who holds that heter is nishapech l’issur even up to 60:1, is there
a svara to say that the heter is only nishapech if there is 1 k’zais of issur, or will it
even be nishapech by ½ zais?

R”T would say that the half k’zais can generate an issur in the rest of the mixture b/c
what is the difference b/t eating one k’zais stam or based upon heter nishapech.

Chullin (98a) (p18)- a ½ zais of fat fell into a taaroves of meat, you will only need 30
half zaisim to be m’batel it. His father answered him and said: 1) that is zilzul shiurim
derabanan and 2) chatzi shiurim are deoritta.

Chazon Ish (p19) - how can the gemara call the issur a chatzi shiur if R”T would say it is
nishapech b/c then there would be a shiur shalem!! The fact that the gemara calls the ½
zais a chatzi shiur even though it was in a taaroves, means that it does NOT create a
shiur zais from nishapech [therefore there is no heter mitztaref l’issur].
Therefore, the C”I says that no Rishon holds of nesapech of a ½ zais up to 60, therefore
R”T can’t say this from the gemara of Chullin.
{He says that R”T doesn’t hold of nishapech l’heter up to 60 and R”T is really R’
Chaim K. like B”Y said.}

Pesachim (44b) (p20)- brings a machlokes b/t the Chachamim and R”A in a case where
kosher bread is dipped in thick wine where some of the chatzi shiur of wine remains bain
on top of the bread. R”A says that heter is mitztaref l’issur even in this case.
Rashi- says that if the wine would’ve seeped into the bread then all would agree that the
din of heter mitztaref would apply, b/c TKI is a deoritta by nazir.

R’ Akiva Eiger (p21)- asks the same question that the C”I asked on Rashi, that it seems
from the Gemara Chullin that you can NOT say heter nishapech l’issur by a ½ shiur.

Answer for R”T

Chelev and Chuluv (milk) and meat- mb”m or mbs”m?
Vilna Goan says that the chelev and the meat are called MB”M.
Ran (p23)- says that chelev is MB”M with basar.
R”T is talking about min b’sheano mino!!, therefore 1) R”T says that heter is nishapech
in a case of mbs”m and chatzi shiur and 2) the gemara in Chullin is discussing a case of
mb”m because it is about ½ zais of chelev falling into basar.

Q2 on R”T) Chullin (108)- ½ milk and ½ meat is called chatzi shiur, therefore there
can’t be a shiur of nishapech (b/c a “chatzi shiur” is not nishapech).
This case too would be a stirah to R”T who holds chatzi shiur is nishapech.

Nachalas Yehoshua- (p22) (98) and quotes the Ran who’ll say milk/meat is called
MB”M. Therefore, b/c R’ Tam is talking about MB”SM and the Gemara in Chullin is
talking about MB”M and we can save R’ Tam (quotes S”A).

Like C”I
R’ Willig- wanted to give a svara that TKI would only be said by a shiur k’zais so every
piece eaten is a carbon copy of that original piece. Chatzi shiur can’t exceed its shiur.
Rash (T’vul Yom)- chatzei shiur only works to be nishapech if it is 1) b’ain and
2) achshevay (you feel that the piece is chashuv to you), therefore, perhaps in a taaroves
it would not be nishapech.
Plesi (p26)- says that the initial issur (the ½ zais quantity) can never be exceeded.

Like R”T
R’ Soloveitchik- said that the chidush of the Torah is that you have to eat a kezayit with
taam issur in it even if it began as less than a zais. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what we
started out with originally. This is against the C”I!!

R’ Simon- the gemara is trying to understand how much heter is necessary to be m’batel
a ½ zais, 60x. This doesn’t mean that the half zais can’t be mitztaref l’heter!! The
discussion of “chatzi shiur assur” is just an additional statement of the gemara about
chatzi shiur and doesn’t undermine the potency of chatzi shiur making shiur shalem.
Therefore, the Gemara does not impose a difficulty on R’ Tam.

Pri Migadim (p27)- says that chatzei shiur can cause a “nishapech l’heter” and make it a
shiur shalem.
R’ Simon- You get malkos for the taam of tref and not the tref itself, so why should it
matter what causes it.

Taam K’Ikkar (3)
Shiur 6/ Sept 26- (M) Packet 6

Pesachim (Mishna-35a) (p20)- there are 5 things that you can make matzoh of and these
are the 5 things that can become chametz. (There is a question whether shiboles shuol is
Rice is not one of the 5 species and you don’t fulfill your obligation except for R’
Yochanan ben Nuri who says rice can become chametz. You can’t fulfill your chiuv
matzoh except with a grain that CAN become chametz.
Grerah- the principle that wheat can make the rice able to become chametz itself.

Mishna Challah (3,7) (p1-2)- if you have a dough with wheat and rice flour and you
bake the matzoh. If most is rice dough, but there is still a nesinas taam of the wheat to
the rice, you can still be yotzeh the mitzvah of matzoh.

Q) What is this based upon?

I. Taam
Zevachim (78a)- TKI must be deoritta from matzoh and therefore any food that has the
taam of the ikkar (wheat) is sufficient to make a din matzoh as well.
Q) On any shitos that say TKI is derabanan (Rashi/Rambam)?
A) The mishna must be saying that you achieve the level necessary to be yotzeh matzoh
w/ only taam of wheat, even though taam isn’t k’ikkar. It must be that not only the actual
wheat, but even taam of wheat would be enough for matzoh.(--?--)

II. Grerah
Yerushalmi Challah- Perek Rishon (p7)- rice can’t become chametz for matzoh, but the
rice, when it is are baked together w/ wheat (which can become chametz) causes the rice
to be able to become chametz as well and the taaroves is therefore rauy l’chimutz. What
is happening is that the wheat is transferring the rice into wheat. However, if the wheat is
so small that it’s not NT (notayn taam) than it can’t convert the rice into wheat.
If this is true then you don’t have to come to taam k’ikkar deoritta.

Q) What is the relationship of the Bavli and Yerushalmi? AND// Is it only wheat or
any of the 5 minei dagan?
Yerushalmi- learns from grerah, therefore only limited combinations (using wheat
excusively) would be able to change the rice to a chametz producing entity
Bavli which surely applies with any of the 5 minim b/c it is all about taam.

Rambam (Chametz U’Matzoh 6,5)- quotes the mishna that if there is taam dagan in
the taaroves (less than 60:1) you are yotzeh. The Rambam holds like the Yerushalmi
(grerah) and requires nesinas taam. The Rambam has to hold like the Yerushalmi b/c he
doesn’t hold of TKI.

Raavad- argues and says that you are only yotzeh if there is KBAP of wheat:orez, but a
smaller ratio (1:6+) would not be able to fulfill your obligation. The Raavad holds of TKI

(deoritta), but he doesn’t hold of heter nis’hapech except by KBAP therefore that shiur is

R’ Chaim (Hilchos Chametz B’Matzoh)- Bavli and Yerushalmi are complementing each
other. TKI gives the taam of wheat in the rice, but it’s still not “lechem” until you have
grerah. 2 dinim- 1) taam plus a 2) din lechem based upon grerah.
Can you make a bracha of ‘al achilas matzoh’ on an apple cooked with matzoh, therefore
you need a din of grerah as well!
Q) R’ Simon- there is no kzais of matzoh in the apple, we assume l’chumrah that the
whole apple was full of the matzoh, but we don’t assume that l’kullah!

Yerushalmi Challah (3,5) (p5)- If you have a rice and wheat taaroves, does the challah
need to have 43 eggs worth of wheat ‘exclusively’ to be chayav in challah or do you only
need 43 eggs after grerah with the rice (ie 42 wheat + 2 rice eggs)?

Ramban (Hilchos Challah) (p10-13)- discusses the Mishna in Challah and says that you
need both together.
1) TKI says that the wheat is not batel but you don’t have matzoh with it.
2) Once the wheat is not batel (whatever that shiur is 1:6 or 1:60) THAN you have the din
of gerara.
In gerara, the rice can not exceed the original amount of wheat in the taaroves. You
therefore need a shiur of 43 eggs of wheat to be michayev the rice.

R’ Shimon on the Ramban- You can’t exceed the shiur of the wheat (ie if the shiur can’t
be michayev then the taaroves with the wheat can’t be yotzeh in matzoh). W/o a shiur of
chiuv challah it won’t help to michayev the rice.

Specific or abstract chametz quality

There are 5 types of dagan: is their ability to become chametz b/c they can potentially
become chametz or are they only able to become chametz if the taaroves includes the 5
types of dagan plus water? Does this particular dough need to be able to be chametz or
only that the dough in abstract can become chametz should we have HAD water in THIS

What is the din about using mei peros for matzoh?

Some say that it becomes chametz too fast and you won’t be able to stop it from
becoming chametz.
Pesachim (36a) (p21)- asks what if you have fruit juice AND water? It says not to use
matzoh made with honey on the first night of pesach.
Rif (p22-3)- it is mistaber like R”A that you can put mei peros with water.
Baal HaMoar- says that the Rif is wrong, there is no proof from duvsha b/c who says
that there was water in that taaroves.
Ramban- says there had to be water there. If there is no water then it won’t be rauy

Divrei Yechezkel- the machlokes b/t the B”HaM and Ramban is whether the taaroves (of
wheat) must be rayui leday chimutz (B”HaM) or this particular dough must be able to
become chametz and you would need grerah (Ramban). He quotes the Rosh.

Rosh- (p19)- explains the shitah of the Ramban using the Bavli and the Yerushalmi:
TKI says 1:50 isn’t batel b/c there is a taam of wheat, but it is like wheat w/o water. The
din of grerah is needed b/c it is not enough that it has the taam of wheat, b/c Ramban
holds that this specific dough needs to have water and be able to become chametz. It
is not enough to just have one of the minei dagan w/o water. This is why the Ramban
requires the din of grerah.

If there is a machlokes b/t the Bavli and the Yerushalmi there is an important N”M:
Bavli- it can be things other than wheat (and rice), but even oats and rice, but the
Yerushalmi would only allow wheat (and rice).

Ta’am K’Ikkar (4)
Shiur 7/ Sept 28- (W) Packet 7

Can you eat tref meat that fell into a pot of kosher meat if it is nishapech (it’s a safek and
it is safek derabanan l’kullah by min b’mino)?

R’ Shachter quotes in Ikvei HaTzon(p2)- the question was that tref meat was put into
the pot of kosher meat for a wedding, it was dished out to the people and we don’t know
whether there is 60. This looks like a simple question of MB”M by nishpach.
R’ Chaim said that you have to go l’chumrah in this case b/c the non-kosher meat was
not salted, so not only is it tref, but it also has an issur of blood (an issur kares). The
blood is min b’sheano mino which is ta’am k’ikkar deoritta and you have to go
l’chumrah. (Yotzeh min ha’assur (YMI) is assur m’deoritta.)
-- But, the halacha is that blood which was cooked is only m’derabanan and therefore it
should be a safek 60 m’derabanan.
-- R’ Chaim responded that this blood is from a tref animal and the halacha is that
anything that comes from a non kosher animal is also tref. R’ Chaim said that the blood is
only derabanan by the bishul, but it is also an issur of trefah on it and therefore an issur of
trefuss remains on the blood and therefore it remains an issur deoritta. The blood from a
trefah is no different from milk from a trefah.

Tosefos (Pesachim 22a) (p3)- says that an animal that dies w/o shechita- there is only an
issur of nivelah on the meat and there is no issur of neveilah on the dam.

R’ Chaim’s chiddush is that Tosefot case is limited to nevala because nevala happens
after death. Our case is a tref case which happens when the animal is alive, therefore the
blood also has an issur of YMI. After death there is no issur of YMI.

Pesachim (22a)- Chizkiah and R’ Abahu- R’ Abahu says every time it says “lo tochal” it
is also an issur of hana’ah. What about nivelah?
Gid hanashe- says “lo tochal,” but it is muttar for hana’ah b/c it is from a nivelah and
nivelah is muttar b’hana’ah.
Blood- it uses “es ha’aretz tishpechnu kamayim”- which is a passuk that says that blood
is like water. Just as water is muttar b’hanaah so to blood should be muttar.

Tosefos- why don’t we learn blood from nivelah if niveilah also has is muttar b’hana’ah
(ie why from water)?
A) From here it seems that blood is not a part of the nivelah.

Sources for Issur Yotzeh

1) Vayikra (11,4) and Devarim (14,7-8) say that the camel (gamal) is assur.
Bechoros (6b)- why do you need 2 times: A) one is camel from camel and one is camel
from a cow. A2) Chachamim: one is to say the camel itself is assur and the second is for
the milk of the camel.

2) Vayikra (11,15)- “bas ha’yaanah” the daughter of the ostrich- why the daughter of the
Chullin (64b)- the “bas” is the egg of the ostrich even when it is edible and it didn’t
become an animal and just like the ostrich is assur, also the egg is kosher.

3) Vayikra (11,31)- “a’leh ha’temayim luchem”-

Chullin (112b) (p14)- this comes to add the “tzir, rotuv, kippah” of the treff animal (ie.
the stuff that oozes out of the animal).
These three Pesukim show us that Issur Yotzei is Deorayta, but all the psukim are
from issur assey.

Is it like the original issur or a separate issur- is there malkos or an issur asseh for
these deorittas?
Chullin (64a)- if the egg forms (rikmah) an embryo then you get malkos, if not then you
don’t get malkos.

Tosefos- Q) Yozeh min assur- why does it need to be an embryo, it is still yozeh min
ha’assur even if it doesn’t become an embryo? [From Tosefos’ question it seems that
the issur yozeh seems to be the same as the animal itself and there would be malkos
generally by anything that is yozeh…]
A) The halacha is that a sheretz can’t be eaten and it is also m’tameh. By tumah of
sheretz it needs rikmah, therefore the gemara is saying here, that this is why sheretz
requires rikmah to get malkos in this case.

Rambam- says that there is NO MALKOS on yozeh min ha’assur. He says that
rikmah makes it into a sheretz on its own right so therefore it gets malkos, but generally
you don’t get malkos from ‘yotzeh.’

Chavos Daas-
Q1) Why do you need a special limud of “ha-temaim” to show that a “yozeh min haissur”
is assur deoritta, why don’t we use TKI?
2) What do those who say TKI derabanan do with these pesukim? Do we consider them
A) TKI and yozeh min ha’issur are different (perhaps some YMI can be w/o taste) and
therefore TKI can’t be used to teach me YMI.
A2) YMI seems to be worse that TKI, so the posuk by YMI wouldn’t automatically
include TKI.

Bechoros (6b)- how do we know that we can drink milk generally? A) Milk seems to be
formed from the blood and B) it is “aver min ha’chai” by yozeh?
-- Perhaps b/c basar b’chalav is assur implies that chalav is muttar.
-- No, perhaps basar b’chalav adds on the issur hana’ah.

Human milk

Rambam- human flesh: eating the meat of a person doesn’t get malkos from “lo tochal,”
but we know it from “zoss hachayah asher tochlu” that it is an issur asseh. This posuk
implies that you can only eat these animals and not other animals (or humans).
Magid Mishna (p17)- perhaps this is why you can have milk from a woman, b/c it is not
an issur lav, but only an issur asseh. The issur asseh is only on the flesh and not on yozeh.
(Av: That would be why you wouldn’t need a separate posuk to say that human milk is

Not everyone agrees to R’ Chaim

R’ Chaim-by a treif animal the blood is an issur yotzay, but NOT a nevala.

Pri Migadim (p20)- says that bishul will take off the issur of blood, but not the other
issur that is on the blood (like R’ Chaim).

Rambam (p18)- if you cook meat with chalav of a dead animal, you don’t get malkos b/c
you are only o’ver if it is milked when it was alive. Milk that was in the animal when
shechted is only a derabanan.

Pri Migadim (p21) (intro to Melicha)- even though the Rambam paskins that it is not an
issur deoritta of basar b’chalav, he says that it is nivelah and it is against the R’ Chaim.
The Rambam is only saying that you are patur on the issur of basar b’chalav, but you are
still o’ver on eating nivelah. (vs. R’ Chaim) He would say that even a nivelah is assur,
while the R’ Chaim would say that it is mutar.
Bach (p19)- says that you don’t get malkos from basar b’chalav, but from nivelah. (v. R’

Neos Yaakov- quotes the Pri Migadim and says that the tref animal created the milk and
that is why it is tref, but once the animal is dead (neveilah) it can’t create an issur-
supports R’ Chaim.
Tosefos [Beitzah 6b] (p24)- if there are eggs in the rooster which is a trefah, the reason
that the eggs are assur is b/c the chicken is a trefah and not b/c of neveilah. (R’ Chaim
bases himself on this.)
R’ Chaim Ozer- is against R’ Chaim

Shnapps on Pesach
Nodeh B’Yehuda- had a question about importing shnapps on Pesach (kosher l’pesach)
w/o chametz. They would ship it in from Amsterdam and goyim would sell it to the Jews.
The goyim only wanted to put on one seal on it instead of two. Is a safek of deoritta?
-- The chametz shnapps and the non-chametz shnapps tasted differently, so it would
never be rov chametz, but perhaps they would put in some chametz and not rov.
Therefore, if the issur was only derabanan then we can rely b’safek on one seal.
[Avichai: Why isn’t this a case of MBS”M b/c the shnapps tasted differently?]

By tref milk the poskim write that one seal is good enough b/c the tref milk is
discernible so the goyim won’t mix a lot of it into the mixture. If the issue is derabanan
then one seal would be fine.

[Avichai: How can we tell the difference b/t the milk (trefah and regular)?]

Who says it’s a derabanan? Maybe it’s MBS”M and it’s a deoritta?
A) Possibility I: N”B says that milk is YMI. The only chashash of the milk is that they
put in some tref milk. One seal is ok because the only problem with tref milk is YMI
which is a din deoritta. {Perhaps by shnapps as well it would be fine to only have one

B) Possibility II: Rambam- says there is no malkos by milk. TKI deoritta is only said by
maachalot asurot if there is an issur lav. But, by milk perhaps you don’t say TKI deoritta
b/c milk is not a lav, but an issur yozeh. (This would be b/c all the sources of taam
k’ikkar are by laavim.) This is why you can only have one seal (by an issur yozeh).
Conclusion of Rambam: That is by milk, however, by chametz we say TKI is deoritta
and therefore by the shnapps it is no good! Therefore, you can’t bring a proof to
chametz from milk b/c it is an issur lav and not yozeh and therefore one seal is not

Chasam Sofer (p29)- perhaps there is an issur for goyim to eat eggs or milk b/c of aver
min hachai. Who says the heter of “erez zuvas chalav u’dvash’ is for goyim and perhaps
it should be assur for them? (This is the heter for Jews) This would then be a “lifne
A) Even though the ben noach doesn’t have the heter, they also don’t have the issur of
yozeh for a’ver min hachai.
-- The Chasam Sofer says that “hatemaim” was only said by Jews and not by Goyim, so it
should be mutar.

Minchat Chinuch says that dairy products are mutar for goyim because there was never
an issur.

Plesi (p32)- says that “hatemayim” was only written for Jews and not Goyim.
Q) What about Abvaham giving “milk and meat” to the angels and he gave them a’ver
min hachai?
A) Therefore it must be that it is not a’ver min hachai and they don’t have the issur of

Bitul Yavesh B’Yavesh
Shiur 8/ Oct 10- (M) Packet 8

Oneg Yom Tov (p1)-

Q) If you have tzitzis with rov being l’shma and some are not l’shma (or 3 matzos in
front of you and one isn’t baked l’shma), is one of them a safek deoritta and assur or is it
batel? This seems to be a case of YB”Y chad b’trei batel.
A) Bitul is only to take off an issur, but bitul can’t be used to give an object a positive
attribute (like l’shma) when that positive attribute is needed.

Raayot used by Oneg Yom Tov to prove this:

I. Rov misos b”d

Chullin (11a) (p4)- Tosefos (R”T) asked a question- there are 4 misos b”d (and we are
assuming that skilah is the harshest in this case) and we have in front of us 3 skilah and 2
srefah people and we don’t know who is supposed to get which punishment.
To give everyone skilah it’s not fair to the srefah people and the opposite isn’t correct for
the skilah people.
Q) Why don’t you follow the rov and give everyone skilah even though it is the more
chamur opinion?
A) When we follow rov in dinei nefashos it is only to be m’chayev people in the death
penalty. We use rov to say that the person he killed wasn’t a trefah, but here we know
already he’s chayav misah therefore rov can not say WHICH mitah he’s chayav.

This is a strange chiluk? Oneg Y”T says that to give someone Serafa they must need a
positive gmar din that he’s chayav serafa. Bitul b’rov can’t give him that maaleh which
he never had. Therefore this is a proof for Oneg Y”T.

Etz Erez (p5-6)- ANSWER FOR R”T- we have a concept of rov in the Torah and aedim
(witnesses) in the Torah. You need aedim on the maaseh that happened (the details), the
rov will tell me that the person who was shot was a real bar kayamah. By skilah and
srefah- we are using the rov to define the maaseh that was done (ie did this person do
chilul shabbas or bas kohen shezinsa) and that requires aedim. Rov can only be used to
define the facts that are clear

Oneg Yom Tov- this individual needs a gmar din for srefah to get srefah, and rov doesn’t
give him the “gmar din” for the ‘worse punishment’ so the b”d can only give the lesser

II. Korban Pesach

Pesachim (88b) (p7)- 5 animals were brought as a korban pesach and the skin is
separated from the meat and the skins are put in one place and the animal meat in another
place. They then find a mum on one of the skins and makes it a trefah and we don’t know
which is the trefah.

What happens to the 5 animals? You have to burn them all b/c of safek trefah and still all
the people are patur from pesach sheni (if the pasul came after the zrekas hadam b/c at
that point it was mutur to eat the animal).

Q) Why isn’t this chad b’trei batel?

Oneg Yom Tov- says that this also proof to his shittah. Here the bitul can’t make
something a kosher korban and shechted l’shem korban.
(Chavas Da’as (p8) is also sensitive to this question).

This may be a machlokes b/t Rashi/Tosefos in Zevachim

Zevachim (78a) (p9)- If a person chews piggul, tameh and noser together then he isn’t
chayev b/c while you are chewing it becomes ‘aino nikkar’ and we don’t know which
issur is batel in the other issur. The problem will be that we can’t give a hasra’ah b/c the
smaller part (i.e. piggul) will take on the ‘name’ of the larger issur (ie noser) and will be
called noser (and you ate a k’zais [3/4 noser and ¼ piggul), but b/c we don’t know which
item was batel, we can’t be m’chayev at all.

Rashi explains this is because when you are chewing the meat, at any given time you
won’t be chewing equal pieces and one will be batel. You are definetly eating a kzais of
of one the issurim and would be chayev, but you don’t know which one you are chayav.
Tosefot says how are you chayav at all? Each piece will loose its shem issur and it is
NOT miztareph to the other issur.
Rashi and Tosefot are arguing whether bitul simply takes off the issur or can it actually
do something positive and make it into another issur.

YB”Y Deoritta and Derbanan

Chullin (96b) (p10)- gidim are cooked together with other gidim (if you recognize it you
must take it out or else it is assur).
Chullin (99b-100a) (p11)- what about rov? Beriah is different. The Rishonim says from
here that all you need is rov.
Tosefos says that rov is all you need even m’derabanan (yb”y mb”m).
Ran (p12)- MB”M YB”Y only requires rov even m’drabanan and the Ra’avad is wrong
as the gemara in Chullin implies (see B”Y 109,1)
Ra’avad- says that you need 60 m’derabanan even for MB”M. When the gemara says
“batel b’rov” it means “60,” even though this is not the pashut pshat. The gemara wasn’t
discussing the actual shiur in this case.

Normally it will be nikkar haissur, but this is a case where it is not clear.
Shach (109,8) (p19)- Defines possible cases of yb”y mbs”m-
1) shochet shechted three animals and one of the three knifes that were used was pagum
and the shochet doesn’t know which animal he used the pagum knife on.
2) Ground up and we can’t see it
3) Looks the same and has a different taste

Ra’avad- says even mb”m requires 60, surely by this case.

Sefer HaTrumah- says that we require 60 b/c you may come to cook the mixture and
then you’ll have an issur lach b’lach.
Issur V’heter- is not happy with the reasoning of the Sefer HaTrumah. You can taste
each one and taste the difference and STILL not know which is assur, so it is like nikkar
ha’issur. But, when there is 60 it would be too hard to find so it’s mutar.
S”A (p19)- brings down the Baal Trumah saying that it requires 60.

YB”Y by an Issur D’rabanan

Shaare Dura (p16)- Stirah in the Shaare Dura based on his 2 comments:
1) by an issur derabanan all you need is 1:1 to be able to eat it, but it should be given to
two people.
2) Chad B’trei- give to two people, a Jew and a Goy.
Shach (109,9) brings down the stirah in the Shaare Durah: 1) 1:1 vs. 1:2 and 2) 2 Jews
vs. Jew and Goy.
1) is discussing mb”m yb”y
2) is discussing mbs”m and we don’t want the Jews to know that there was a different
taste and perhaps the Goy will eat the tref.

Additional on the machlokes Rashba/ Ra’ah

Pri Chadash: What is the din of a tref kli that was placed back into the drawer b/f
Rashba- batel
Ra’ah- not batel and nikar ha’issur

What about by a case of basar b’chalav where the meat kli mixed into milk utensils?
P”C says that there is a chiluk b/t a treff knife and with a milk knife that fell into the meat
knives. The Rashba wouldn’t say that the knife was batel when it comes to B”B. In this
case it is nikkar ha’issur b/c you are going to serve string beans and they are going to
taste like milk so it is nikkar haissur and therefore it is a problem.
You can only be makil when it comes to MB”M and not if they have different tastes in
the cutlery.

Teimas Kfeilah
Shiur 9/ Oct 31- (M) Packet 9
R’ Rosensweig- Pilpul is defined as assuming that everyone is assuming everyone else’s

Teimas Kfeilah (TK)- the cases where we rely upon a goyish chef in a cases of MBS”M
to determine the taste of the food.

1) What is the dichotomy b/t TK and the shiur of 60 which we have assumed as
the standard of bitul, how do they work together?

Pri Migadim (Sifsi Daas) (P20)- says that there are 4 shitos that explain the dichotomy:
A) Rashi (Chullin 97a) (P2)- Kfeilah is a ‘chumrah’ that is required beyond the
standard of 60. Rashi required that the issur be m’batel b’shishim and then also
requires a kfeilah to taste the mixture in any case where it is possible. (Kfeilah is
an added component.)
B) Tosefos (Chullin 98a)- says that kfeilah can be used as an additional avenue to 60,
the Jew can either use 60 or kfeilah.
C) Ramban (P7)- says that 60 is generally required, but kfeilah is utilized in a case
where the piece of tref was removed from the pot and we have a safek how much
of the issur actually was spread into the kosher mixture which is NOT 60 times
the actual issur. In this case, the Ramban allows a kfeilah to clarify whether in this
case the taam that was emitted was batel.
D) Rambam (p5) as explained by the B”Y (p6)- a kfeilah is always used (l’chumrah
and l’kulah), and only when a kfeilah CAN’T be used is 60 used. This is why the
Rambam uses only the language of “nosen taam,” and not 60.
Pri Migadim says that the Mechaber holds like the Rambam.
Ramah- says that we do not ask goyim to taste the food today in cases of ta’aroves.

2) Do you need a chef (davka) or is any goy able to taste the food and help in the
There are 2 possible reasons to specifically require a goy chef and not a regular goy:
1) The chef is less likely to lie and has more at stake if he would lie
2) The chef’s palate is what we require and therefore only a chef will do.

A) Ra’ah (Bedek HaBais) (p8)- only a kfeilah can be used even w/o maisiach l’fi
tumo (ml”t).
Tosefos (d’h samchinin)- the chef can be believed b/c he will fear his job if he lies
in food matters, “d’lo merah chezkaso.” [He does not discuss a regular goy.]
B) Rashba (Toras HaBais [4,1,16a]) (p8-9)- SHITTAH I: says that a regular goy can
be used by ml”t, but a kfeilah can be told why he’s being asked. [Goy doesn’t
need culinary school.]
C) Rashba- SHITTAH II: Rosh (p3)- requires a kfeliah and ml”t.
D) Rambam acc. to B”Y- doesn’t require kfeilah OR ml”t (opposite of Rosh). Any
goy can be used and he can be told why he is being asked. [Kfeilah means “doing
a maaseh kfeilah.”]

S”A- is like Rashba I

R’ Perlman (Torah V’Daas Journal)- regarding the water issue: he says that taam/vision
only require the acuity of normal people and not an expert. The question is whether taam
is the same as sight using the Rashba’s first opinion here.

Rabbenu Gershom in Shach (p17)- if a kfeilah is being used b/c of “d’lo merah,” then
the Jew should not be allowed to use ml”t, b/c the chef will have more of an excuse for
having been mistaken about the existence of the taam issur when he is being asked ml”t
and not as “the chef.” [IE Rashba I]
Therefore, anyone who requires ml”t and kfeilah must hold that the reason we require the
chef is for his “taste expertise” and we are afraid that he is going to lie.

RA”Eger- tries to give an explanation of the Ramah using R’ Gershom’s pshat:

We generally try to be somech like all shittos, but in these cases of ta’aroves, using
kfeilah and ml”t is a kullah according to R’ Gershom b/c then we can’t hold of “d’lo
merah.” Therefore, the Ramah does not hold of kfeilah at all.
[Perhaps there can be “d’lo merah” even by ml”t by a kfeilah. This is also a chumrah and
a kullah according to the Rambam who says to use the kefeilah bein l’kullah bein

3) Why do we give a Goy “ne’emanus” in a case of testimony in the area of issur

v’heter? [Bechoros- says that a person who is “chashud” in a certain area can’t
testify in that area, so how can a goy be used for kashrus?]

Menachos 43 (p23) is a source of chezkato umnato. The Gemara says if you buy a Talis
from a Jew than its fine. If you buy it from a Non-Jew who is a tagar/merchant than it’s
also fine, but if he’s a hediyot than it is assur.
Rashi explains the tager is chezkato umnato. Our Rishonim take this idea to explain
R’ Gershom explains this gemara NOT based on chezkato umnato but rather that a tager
is OK because the likelihood is that he bought it from a Jew, while a regular goy could’ve
made the talis himself.

R’ Moshe- the uman might NOT be believed b/c of “lo merah” b/c R’ Moshe says that
some Rishonim don’t hold of the idea of chezkaso umnato or the concept of “lo merah”
(according to R’ Gershom)! Therefore, perhaps the Rambam might not hold of “lo
merah” (chezkaso umnato) and there can be a problem by stores that print their
ingredients and we have no right to trust them.
Taz (Siman 20-Hilchos Tzitzis)/ Ramah-

R’ Chaim Ozer- dealt with an agunah whose husband went to Europe and the French
defense agency printed that he was dead in the government records. R’ Chaim says that
this is a chazakah g’murah from Menachos and Tosefos Chullin on a deoritta level.
R’ Yitzchak Elchanan- also used government records are ne’emanus for agunos.
[This is like the Ra’ah and not Rashba I]??

BB”K (p15)- if there was a question about who owns bees, R’ Yochanan ben Brokah
says that a woman or a child can say that the bees came from one field even though they
aren’t really neeman about dinei mamanos?
Q) Are women and children “b’nei adus?”
A) The adus that we are talking about is when the women/children were talking (ml”t)
and they said where the bees came from. Ml”t is used by people who aren’t usually
believed. MLT only works for eidut isha for aguna. What about the bees’ case? It’s
different because it’s only a kinian d’rabanan. So, MLT only works by Drabanan and
eidut isha.

How can MLT work by a regular goy where it’s a Deorayta according to the

I) Trumas Hadeshen (p16)-

Q) According to the Rishonim that say that 1) any goy can be used + 2) ml”t – here the
question is a deoritta issue so how can they be believed in this case?
A) An egg that was born on Yom Tov can’t be eaten 1) b/c it is muktzah, 2) nolad, 3) as
an issur derabanan. If the egg was born on Yom Tov Sunday the egg is assur m’deoritta
b/c it was finished on Shabbas and the hachanan is from Shabbas for Yom Tov.
--) Eggs that are purchased from goyim on Sunday Yom Tov have this problem as well.
The goy is believed to say that the egg was not born on Yom Tov. This is also ml”t about
a deoritta din!
Q) We should also trust goyim in the gemara BB”K (bees)?
A) Kfeilah is different b/c he is an uman, so he can be used even on a deoritta level.
Q) What about the Rashba who says that even a regular goy can be used?
A) TH”D says that the Rashba must hold that taam k’ikkar is a derabanan and
therefore the regular goy can be used.
Q) But we know that the Rashba does not hold that taam k’ikkar is a derabanan?

II) Shach (p17/19)- quotes TH”D- the gemara in BB”K says that we can only use goyim
by issurei derabanan and by agunos (on a deoritta level) (for a special reason-?), but the
Mechaber and Rashba definitely hold that taam k’ikkar is a deoritta like R”T, so how can
we allow a stam goy to do adus?
A) A goy can be believed when it is a “milsa d’avidah l’igluei” (a circumstance where the
Jew will be able to determine whether the goy was lying when he tastes the mixture after
the goy tells him whether he tasted the issur.) This is different from other cases where the
goy can’t be caught lying right away.
-- Agunos issues are also a “milsa d’avidah l’igluei.”

III) Taz (p17)- the area of taaroves doesn’t require adus gemurah therefore ml”t will

Teima B’Issurin
Shiur 10/ Nov 2- (W) Packet 10

Teima- means that you put something in your mouth and you spit it out, why does a goy
need to do it, perhaps a Jew should be able to do it. Is it hanaah when the food is it your

Shlah (Brachos)- if a person says hamotzi and he didn’t swallow yet, he started chewing
and then he talked. He says that as long as you taste a little bit you have been yotzeh with
the bracha. (Chaya Adam)
Chullin (111b) (p1)- if you have a pot where meat was salted, the problem is that the
blood that came out of the meat is now on the bottom of the pot. (The blood is cold, but it
is salty which can be like roseach [heat/roasting], liquid issur [blood] where heter is
soaked in it, becomes assur- Shmuel). Now you can’t use the pot b/c it had salty blood in
it. Therefore, you have to break a pot of cheres that can’t be kashered.
a) Salting- is like heat
b) Soaking- heter in an issur liquid makes the heter assur like cooking.
c) Davar Chariv- a food with a sharp taste (radish) cut with a knife of issur can become
issur even if it is cold b/c the sharpness is like heat.
If the radish was cut by a meat knife then the Jew should taste the radish to see if it tastes
like meat and if it doesn’t then you can put it into milk. The Jew can taste the food when
the food is kosher for the Jew.
In a case where the knife was of issur you can give the radish to a kfeilah to taste the
radish and determine whether it had the taste of the issur (ie blood), but the Jew is
not allowed to taste the food b/c it is a safek davar assur.
{Avichai: if the radish tasted like meat, are you fleshig?}

Bach- (96,1 d”h asiknah) (p2)- quotes the Maharshal: there are many times that you get
meat from the butcher and you don’t know if he salted it, you are not allowed to taste it
with your tongue b/c if it is not salted then the Jew will be tasting blood!
Drisha (98,1)- quotes the gemara in Chullin and says that this gemara also applies to the
taste of the safek bloody meat and a Jew can’t taste the issur (like the Bach).

Tur (Y”D 42,2) (p4-5)- if the gallbladder was removed while the animal was alive or if it
was not there, the animal is tref.
(42,3) the BH”G says that the gallbladder might have melted into the liver and not that
the marah (gallbladder) was not there. To determine whether the gallbladder melted a
person should taste the liver and if it has a bitter taste then you will know that the marah
was there.
Ra’avan says that if you can’t taste the bitterness when the animal was raw, roast the
liver and then see if you can taste the gallbladder.
S”A (Y”D 42,3)- says that the Jew can taste the liver for the bitter taste and he quotes
the Tur verbatim.
Ramah- says that even though today when we are not big tasting people, you can taste
the liver today.

I) Shach- Q) Didn’t we just say that a Jew can’t taste for issur?
A) In this case it is very likely that the food will be fine and b/c the odds are so high
that everything will be fine, we allow a Jew to taste the food.
II) Taz (98,2) (p8)- the case by marah all you have to do is stick out your tongue and you
don’t have to put the food into your mouth. By a taaroves the Jew would have to put the
food in your mouth and taste, and that a Jew can’t do.
The Taz would permit a Jew to taste meat to determine whether it is salted or not.
M’deoritta the issur is in the throat and m’derabanan the issur is in the mouth, but for
safek maacholes assuros it is fine to use your tongue.

We seem to be talking about different levels of derabanan issurim: sticking out your
tongue is a lesser issur than putting something in your mouth.

Pr”M (Mishbetzos Zahav) (p9)-

1) says that sticking food in your mouth is an “issur deoritta” and there is a din of
‘chatzi shiur b’aechus’ with putting the food in your mouth and is a lesser shiur
of ‘eating.’
2) Licking is only a derabanan.
Safek derabanan l’kulah so you can lick the food, but safek deoritta l’chumrah so you
can’t taste the food in your mouth.

Shach (98,5) (p10/12)- the Shach says that the Ramah means that we don’t use a goy b/c
of “ne’emanus,” but a Jew can be used to determine whether the food is meat or dairy.
(We would be allowed to use a Jew as a kfeilah).
Ateres Zahav (AT”Z- the L’vush) in the Shach- says that we aren’t somech on a goy or
on a Jew according to the Ramah.
Chavas Daas- (p13)- quotes the AT”Z

Teshuvat Rivash- asks whether a Jew can taste non-kosher food? If tasting is muttar,
why does the gemara say to get a Non-Jew?
1) Rivash suggests a revolutionary p’shat and then rejects it: perhaps teimah is muttar,
and the reason why the gemara requires a kfeilah is b/c the goy chews it and swallows it
and not that he only tastes it. This means that the goy must swallow it before we rely on
him. However, just tasting it (without swallowing) is fully OK and would be mutar for
even a Jew.
2) Rivash then says that actual teimah is assur derabanan. Teimah is only mutar by a
Some people only quote the first part of the Rivash and not the rejection of the answer.

Mishbetzot Tzahav quotes Tzemach Tzedek that tasting is assur because you might
come to eat it. This only applies to a deoritta and NOT a derabanan.
[[You can’t eat before you do a mitzvah, but teimah is fine (not a meal/ less than).
Trumas Hadeshen says that even teimah is a problem before doing mitzvos.]]
Pr”M (p16)- quotes the Rivash on (p9) using the first opinion in the teshuva.

S”A (108,5)- Mechaber brings down the Rivash- you can inhale the
Shach- says that the Rivash doesn’t allow tasting.

R’ Tzvi Pesach Frank (p24-5)- discusses whether you need a hechsher on your
R’ Belski said he heard from R’ Moshe- that even though R’ Moshe said that you can
take medicine w/o a hechsher b/c “lo achshevei,” but vitamins need a hechser b/c it is
“like eating.”

Kresi (R’ Yonasan Eibeshitz [more action in Plesi]) (p19)- TH”D asked on the Rashba
about how to use a goy on a deoritta by ml”t and Shach and Taz give their answers [see
Shiur 9]. You are being somech on a goy for an issur deoritta, and ml”t is only mutar on a
You had a safek and the goy said it was fine. That will allow you to rely on him and taste
the food. He says that when you are chewing this food you should check out the food and
that would only be a derabanan and when you are swallowing it, you are really relying
upon your own “neemanus.”

Ksav Sofer (p18)- what is the idea of needing a kfeilah? Kfeilah has an expertise. The
expert will be relied upon w/o swallowing where others will have to swallow it. A regular
goy would therefore need to actually swallow the food (not only “toem u’polet”). When
you put something in your mouth you get a “taam kalush” (weaker taste) and the kfeilah
can tell whether that taam will become a real taam when it is swallowed.
[A Jewish kfeilah won’t know about taam issur.]

If someone eats the food by mistake

Shut Maharsham (p20)- issur falls into heter: what happens if someone ate it by mistake
and now everyone wants to know whether it was mutar, is that mutar?
Perhaps not, b/c “milsa d’lo ramyu inshe, lav a’daate,” when people do not have things
on their mind when they eat the food, they don’t have it on their mind.
Shut Maharshag (p21)- says that taam k’ikkar can only be assur if it can be tasted even
w/o being prepped. If the people can’t taste the food w/o being prepped it is not assur.
This is like the famous line in the Rashba (p23)- since the taam is nikkar that is the
hakarah, “teimaso zo he hakaraso.” Nikkar means “right away.” This is against the
R’ Abade- says that chewing gum is like a piece of wood and that it is muttar.

Basar Shma or Taamah
Shiur 11/ Nov 7- (M) P11 YD 98

What is mb”m and mbs”m? We thought that the n”m b/t the 2 cases was that mb”m had
the same “taam” and mbs”m had different “taam.”

Avodah Zara (66a)- issur mashehu like by yayin nesech and chametz b’pesach is
generally by mb”m. Mashehu is clearly an issur derabanan b/c rov or shishim should
really work.
How do you know whether something is mino or aino mino?
Rava- shma
Abaye- taamah
We should paskin like Rava based upon the Yaal K’gam principle.

Ramah (p3)- paskins like Rava as do the Mordechai and the Or Zeruah
Shach- attacks the Ramah b/c the reason for 60 would be TKI, so mb”m should be b/c of
taam not shem. How can something that has a different shem be assur min haTorah.
--) What about the Ramah’s gemara? The Shach says that it is not relevant b/c that
gemara is talking about an issur mashehu after we already have 60. If we already have
60 then taam will be a non-factor, and the question is whether that is enough. But, in a
case where you don’t have 60, surely the taam and not the shem should be followed.
Mordechai (p4)- chicken and meat he says that they have similar tastes and different
names and we go basar shma so they are mbs”m.

Answering for Ramah

Chavas Daas (p6)- attempts to answer for the Ramah. The shiur of 60 is a halacha
l’moshe m’sinai. When it is mbs”m, the Torah requires a stronger bitul and the shiur of
60 is not for taam. (This is against TKI).
R’ Soloveichik (p27)- normally a different shem is a different taam, so the HL’Misinai
was after the name and not specifically the taam. We don’t care whether the taam is there
or not you still need 60 m’deoritta. TKI makes it stronger that the heter is nishapech to
issur. The shiur of 60 is a shiur of bitul by mbs”m by shem alone. This is a shiur bitul
irrespective of taam.

Imrei Baruch (p6)- the S”A quotes the Rambam’s shittah that T”K will always help
(even w/o 60). The S”A and the Ramah seem to agree to this Rambam. If you need 60
irrespective of taam, then how can kfeilah help? He doesn’t like the R’ Soloveichik b/c
taam is important.

Aruch Hashulchan (p8)- wine and grapes have different name and same taam. The
AH”S says the Rema wants to add a chumra that if you have something with a different
name than if they taste the same than maybe they have a little different taste and
treat it as MBS”M. Of course, if the taste was different w/ the same shem than the Rema
would agree you need 60. [The Ramah holds of both shem and taam.]
Maadane HaShulchan- like the AH”S- says that the Ramah in principle is like basar
taam, and shem is a giluei on the taam (red flag).

Plesi- the Mechaber says that if something is nishpach you have to go l’chumrah. The
Plesi asks why you don’t get a kfeilah. (Perhaps you do get a kfeilah and the question is
no question.)
If you have 59 kzais of corn, 1 kosher meat and 1 tref meat. From the perspective of the
tref meat there is 60:1. On the other hand there is a nesinas taam of basar in the mixture,
so perhaps you need to undermine the taam of basar so you might need 120 against the
kosher and tref piece of meat to undermine basar taste. Rashba- perhaps a basar taste is
like hukar h’issur. He says this is fine.
In this case the kfeilah won’t be able to do anything for you, b/c he will tell you that there
is a meat taste. In that case you would not have to go l’chumrah b/c of safek d’eoritta.
In a case of nishpach it won’t help for the goy to eat it b/c the taam that he tastes can be

Pr”M- quotes this Plesi and says that he had a safek in this case in his Introduction. If
you have 60 against the tref and not against the kosher meat.

Mishna Urlah (2,16) (p15-16)- in a case where there is terumah and k’lei hakerem of
tavlin (spices) and the kohen can eat the Terumah and not the k’lei hakerem and the klei
hakerem should be assur. By a sefek deoritta can I rely on the meat being kosher. The
Pr”m learns from this mishna that you are tasting tavlin in this case and the tavlin of issur
is batel. The Pr”M says he is b’safek whether you should have no taam basar.

Posuk Vayikra [Acharei Mos (16,18) (p21-2)] by Yom Kippur the Par and the Sair are
shechted and the bloods are put together. In this case the blood of the Sair should be batel
in the blood of the Par.
Chullin- 22a (p23)- the issue is whether A) there is a special din by things brought on the
mizbeach, B) R”Y says that mb”m is not batel.

Chullin 23a (p24)- if you have mb”m- tref and kosher milk- it won’t work, but if there is
also an aino mino there ie corn, can we say that the tref milk links up with the corn and
then there will be bitul or will the min b’mino not be batel.
R”Y- says in Chullin (100b) we say “salek es mino k’ilu aino” and the mbs”m link first
to help the mino and be m’batel taam and fix the problem of mb”m aino batel!!

Rashba- (p26)- can you say salek es aino mino and then the mb”m connects are creates a
bitul rov and then it would only be a safek derabanan. This is the other side of R”Y’s
Taz quotes the Rashba (p3)-
Shach challenges the Rashba (p3)- he doesn’t think that the extension of the gemara
which is in the shiur bitul can be extended to a mitzeus question about whether there is
taam and we should go l’chumrah.

R’ Solevechik- (p28)- connects the Shach on the Ramah and on the Rashba- it is all
about taam and not about shiur and therefore you can’t say salek. {Perhaps taam is din in
metzius (Imrei Baruch).}

Keizad M’sha’arin
Shiur 12/ Nov 9- (W) P12 YD 98

How do you calculate the 60? Do we assume that the “whole issur” went into the heter
even when the issur is still b’ain?”
If the whole k’zais of the meatball went into the corn then the meatball would be
dissolved, but if you remove the whole or a majority of the meatball, how much taam
really got into the rest of the taaroves?

There are 2 possibilities: A) “b’dedei m’sha’arinan” (you need 60 times the issur that
fell into the heter), B) the other svara is “mai d’nafek menae m’sha’arinan” (you
evaluate how much of the issur you think you went into the issur.)
The maskana is “b’dedei m’sha’arinan,” even though this is not probable.

“B’dedei m’sha’arinan”

Chullin 97b (p1)- in a regular taaroves you need 60:1, by the utter you need 59:1 and the
k’chal is included in the heter to be m’vatel the issur.
1) The milk of a shechted animal is only assur derabanan.
2) If you cooked the kchal with its milk, the meat of the kchal can’t be eaten b/c we
assume that the milk becomes embedded in the kchal and can’t be removed and
the kchal can’t be o’ser other mixtures.
3) The volume of the kchal can be used with the rest of the taaroves to be m’batel
the milk volume.
4) How much milk is in the kchal? We assume that the whole volume of the kchal is
full with milk (so we are using the volume of the kchal twice, once for heter and
once for issur).
We assume that there is milk in the pocket of the kchal and we use the kchal towards 60.

Chatichas Na’asis Nevailah (CNN)

If you have 1 ounce of issur that fell on a 10 ounce piece of heter, when that 11 ounces
falls in another pot- you need 60 against the issur and the 10 ounces of heter. Instead of
needing 50 more, you need 660 times the 11 issur ounces.
CNN doesn’t have to do with ta’am k’ikkar deoritta.

Machlokes Mechaber/Rama about CNN

Mechaber- says that sha’ar issurim does not have the concept of CNN, only be basar
b’chalav (Rabbenu Ephraim). Therefore CNN doesn’t apply by blood.
Ramah- says that CNN also applies by sha’ar issurim.

This question is really relevant to every single situation. Why does the
Gemara only ask it by a case of kchal?

Rashba- says that we learn from kchal to ALL cases and we are m’sha’ar against the
whole item (bediday). Even though our case is only a derabanan, yet we learn to all cases,
even by sha’ar issurim.
Ra’avad- it depends on an issur that you can’t kasher. Kchal will always be assur and
therefore we will always be m’sha’er b’dedei. But, if you have a milk spoon and you then
stir meat, that spoon eventually can be kashered. If you don’t know how to be m’sha’ar
then you can use “mai d’nafik.” The only time that we use “b’dedea” is when that object
can’t become kosher later. Anything that can eventually become mutar can use “mai
Others disagree and say that we are always “m’sha’ar b’dedea” (unless you know that
there was no issur ie kaf chadasha).

If you know how much left the spoon

Rashba- says it if you know how much issur is left the spoon, for example, if you took a
new spoon and only stirred one kzais of milk but the spoon is 4 kzais. Do you need
against one or against 4?
A) You can measure against what you know (ie 1 in this case).

If the spoon was full with 4 kzais vegetable and 1 kzais milk and then you put it into
meat, how much issur do you have?
Some say 1 kzais and there is a shittah that says 5 kzais of issur.

Do you says CNN by “beliyah”

If a spoon gets issur in it, do you measure against the amount of issur that went in or
against EVERYTHING that is in the spoon?
Rashba- says you measure against the whole spoon.
Ramban- says that you do NOT says CNN by bleos but you only measure the issur.

What about if you didn’t stick the whole spoon in the taaroves, do you have to be
m’sha’ar only that part of the spoon that went in or the whole spoon based upon the
Pesachim 74a- discussing korban pesach: the pesach was roasted on a wooden spit b/c
the korban must be cooked by the fire itself (“ke im tzli aish”) and NOT by a metal spit
(which is “zli machmas davar acher”). The part of the Korban which is far away from the
fire will be roasted by the metal and NOT by the fire. This is known as ‫חם מקצתו חם כולו‬

Hagaos HaS’mak (p15)- (the Rabenu Peretz on the bottom of the S’mak)- says that we
learn from ‫ פסחים משנה‬that metal is ‫ חם מקצתו חם כולו‬so too here, since the heat goes
through the whole spoon, even the part that is not touching the food, you still need 60
against the whole spoon.

S”A (98,4)- says you need 60 against the whole thing (b’dedea). It doesn’t matter if you
can kasher it (hagalah) or not (like the ‫רשבא‬/Shach). Some say that if it’s metal than you
need against the whole thing even if only part goes in (‫)ר פרץ‬. (This is against the Raavad
who says you don’t need b’dedea by metal.)

There are 2 issues: 1) b’dedea and 2) whether we say CNN by kalim or not.

Ramban- says that we don’t say CNN by b’leos.

If you know how much the issur went into the utensil than you only do against that
amount (Rashba).
Rema says we hold like the Rashba, there is Chanan by utensils.
Rema says some hold ONLY kli cheres (which you can’t kasher) you have Chanan but
other utensils you don’t.
Some say this Rema is the shita of the Raavid.
Rema it’s good to be machmir for the chumrah (Rabbenu Peretz).

CNN by kalim

Mordechai- if you have a cheres pot that is 10 kzais (Shach thinks people mix this up
with the Raavad and this is the opinion in the Rema). Do you view the whole cheres as
the issur or is it only if it had a b’lea? He is michlek b/t cheres and other kalim and he
says that you are m’sha’ar against the whole kli cheres b/c you can’t kasher it, but all
other kalim that can be koshered we are m’sha’ar against the amount that is in the kli.
R’ Feivel Kohen- the kli cheres becomes a davar h’assur and you are m’sha’ar the whole
Shach (21)- in the old S”A they said it was the Raavad, but the Raavad is not about CNN
and you can’t have b’dedea w/o hagalah, but this shittah is the Mordechai that you say
CNN by a kli cheres.

Solid vs. Liquid by bediday

R’ Moshe/ Neziv- says that bediday is used only by a solid because by a liquid the taam
and mamashut are the same thing. If there is mamashut left, than the taam did not go it.
However, by a solid the taam has power beyond the food itself. Even if afterwards you
see how much the solid was, it doesn’t matter b/c the taam might have gone into the
R’ Moshe says that even if we could measure how much was in the solid issur, we still
wouldn’t know how far the taam spread out.

The ‫ גמרא‬asked by ‫ כחל‬because that is a davar mutar. By issurim, even if we could

measure how much left the meatball, we would still measure the whole meatball. ‫ טעם‬can
spread up to 60 times its amount.

Shiurei Bitul B’Issurin Shonim
Shiur 13/ Nov 14- (M) P13 YD 98

Urlah (2,1) (p1-3)- for a zar to eat a taaroves of terumah and chullin you need a 1:100
ratio for bitul (this includes trumas maser, dmai and bekurim:: urlah and k’lei hakerem
need 200:1). These issurim are mitztaref to require 100:1 against all the issurim.

It is only by mbm that you have these shiurim. By mbsm sometimes you’ll need more
sometimes less, but the 100:1 or 200:1 shiurim aren’t needed---[Av: is this true?]

Bartenura- says that urlah and k’lei hakerem are issur achilah and hana’ah (above the
issur of achilah for terumah etc.), so the chachamim took the Torah’s lead and they
extended the shiur from 100 to 200.
Rambam (15,13ff) (p6-8)- brings down these shiurim l’halacha. These shiurim even
apply to a davar yavesh.
Shach- this even applies to urlah of chutz l’aretz.

Rambam (15,18) has a chiddush about kchal. We said that you need 59+the kchal
against the milk. The Rambam also says that you need 59 against the milk. Because the
kchal is only a derabanan, so we are makil with their shiurim.
Some learn: this Rambam to mean that ANY CASES OF DERABANAN require only
59, but most Rishonim disagree with this.
Rashba: Toras HaBais (p9)- the reason why kchal only requires 59 is b/c the meat of the
kchal is NOT ASSUR and not that we are giving a principle that can apply to all issurei

Milsa D’aveda L’taamah (Tavlin)

This is something that is put into the mixture to give the food a better taste. The question
is what the shiur is for these foods if they are assur (salt/ pepper).
Rabbenu Yona in Issur V’heter (p10-11)- we can assume that 60 is “stam” going to be
m’vatel the taam by foods, but these food items can’t rely on this kulah of assuming 60.
He says that the fear of Aveda L’taamah is only a derabanan (ie to assume that there is
taam after 60.)
Ran (p13)- says that if something gives off taam, even up to 1000, is an issur deoritta.
Pr”M (p12) [Pesichah]- wants to say that there is a machlokes b/t the Issur V’heter and
the Ran in this issue.
Shach- quotes the Issur V’heter and says it is a machlokes b/t I”V and Ran. N”M- is
safek derabanan l’kullah.
Badei HaShulchan (R’ Feivel Kohen)- says that he is not sure whether there is a
machlokes b/t the Ran and the Issur V’heter. He says that he Ran is not talking about
tavlin at all, but about other food items. He says that the taste is a deoritta when you can
taste the “food item itself.” By tavlin, where you aren’t tasting the “food itself” but only
its effect on the food item. This is a taam kalush Therefore, in the case of tavlin, the issur
may really be derabanan. He does not think that the Shach holds of this distinction.

Tavlin that has a bleah of another issur, not that it itself is assur
Tosefos Chullin 108b (p16)- What happens if the salt has a bleah of blood in it? Is it
considered avidah l’tamah or does it get the regular din of bitul 60?
A) B/c the whole gorem is something that is m’batel in 60, the salt won’t be more
machmir than the issur itself.
Sefer HaTrumah (p17)- agrees to the answer of Tosefos, that the issur on salt can’t
exceed the issur it came from.

S”A (p20)- Kchal is batel in 59 (against the Rambam that all issure derabanan are in 59).
He says that all issurim today are batel in 60, besides chametz.
He says that the issur by tavlin to make it assur in more than 60, must be assur machmas
atzmo and NOT b/c of the b’leah.

Ramah- says that all things that are noheg today are 60:1. (He quotes the Rashba and the
Tur and not like the Rambam who says that all derabanan is 59:1).
Shach- what about urlah? Urlah applies today and it is not 60:1, so how can the S”A say
that everything else is 60:1?
A) In Krakow the Ramah didn’t have to worry about Terumah, but urlah is 200:1 and it
does apply by chutz luaretz? 1) Perhaps it has a lesser shiur in chutz”l.. 2) or perhaps the
Ramah is not giving an exhaustive list and really the shiur is 200:1 by min b’mino.

[R’ Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg’s bechinah: What is the shiur of bitul of Urlah in
Chutz LuAretz? Safek Urlah in chutz luaretz is muttar as long as you don’t know for

Is a milsa avedah l’taamah anything that was put in for taam or specifically these
d’varim charifim?
Taz (98,11) (p20)- he thought that perhaps even shuman is a milsa d’avidah, but he then
quoted the Issur V’heter who says that a milsa avidah is like salt, only a davar charif.
Rambam in Perush Mishnaos Urlah- disagrees with the Issur V’heter. He says that a
person should be zahir and not only think that tavlin are sharp things, but really anything
that you put into food to give a taste.
Some say based on this Rambam that we should be machmir.

Egg with chick inside

Chullin (p18)- if you have an egg that has a chick inside:
M’derbanan we treat it like a sheretz in the egg. The gemara has a chumrah by efroach
that the shiur bitul is 61.
Tur- says that you need 61 b/c there are different sizes of eggs. You might think that you
have 60, but perhaps you don’t, so you add one to offset the differences in sizes.
[Av: What about by jellybeans or other meat pieces? By meat, we are m’sha’ar against
the meat. What about if there are bigger eggs and smaller eggs, we can’t measure by
piece, but we must use volume.]

Shiur 14/ Nov 16- (W) P14 YD 99

1) Do you have to be m’batel the bones in a tref animal?

2) How are you m’batel them?
3) Can you eat the bones if there is no bitul?

Chullin (98b) (p2)- 1st opinion: there is a gemara of z’roah bishaela where the kohen’s
zroah is being cooked with the rest of the animal that there is a bitul of the zroah.
The opinion that says 60 says that the bitul includes the bones and the meat and the
opinion that says that you include only the meat means that the shiur is 1:100.
According to the opinion that says 60:1, it would seem to be that kosher bones
attach to the kosher meat in the taaroves and tref bones require 60x to be m’batel
them like the tref meat.
[Shiur of 60 comes from here. Tos. says it’s only an asmachta b/c zroah is a mb”m case.]

Ran (32b) (p3)- why don’t you count the bones when it comes to the shiur of 100?
A) B/c bones don’t give out taam, so why do you need to be m’batel the bones.

Therefore, there are 2 machlokes b/t 60 and 100:

1) Do we count the soft tref bones for the issur element of the taaroves? The opinion of
60 says that the tref bones in the animal are soft and therefore they are counted as part of
the issur element of the taaroves. 100 says they aren’t counted to the issur or the heter.
2) Do the kosher bone “mater” (help towards the bitul)? The opinion of 60 says that the
hard kosher bones help to be counted against the issur b/c the issur will be nispashet
(spread out; into the non-tasting area inside the bones).
Shach (99,1)- brings the distinction b/t lach and yavesh bones (like the Ran).

Yerushalmi Urlah (p4)- 2nd opinion: maybe the issur bones can be counted against the
issur if they are hard. The Yerushalmi is discussing the peel/shell of trumah and the
Yerushalmi says that the shells aren’t tref and the help AGAINST the issur.

Rash Trumot (5,9) (perush on the Mishna) (p5)- asks how the Yerushalmi works with the
gemara in Chullin?
1) Perhaps the Yerushalmi is discussing klepos (shells) and they are different from bones
which may be more wet (b/c klepos have no taam while atzamos do).
2) He says that the gemara of Chullin is an ashmachta and you can’t learn anything about
bones from that gemara and really atzamos of issur can be counted for heter.

Or Zaruah (p8)- 3rd opinion: the atzamos of issur won’t count for issur, but they also
won’t help for heter either. The bones of heter are mitztaref to the heter element of the
Shaare Durah- quotes the Or Zaruah.

S”A (p12)- says like the Yerushalmi that even the atzamos of the issur can be used for
the kosher element of the taaroves.

Ramah (p14)- quotes the Or Zaruah l’chumrah, but he says that the Yerushalmi is the
ikkar shittah.
S”A- If there is MOACH (marrow) in the tref bones, then the moach helps the issur side.
Shach distinguishes between bones which are lach and Yavesh (like the Ran).
Beit Yosef quotes the Bedek Habayit quotes R’ Yerucham that by bones you only use
heter ones if it’s MM or MAM when there is not taam.

What about the O”Z- if the bones don’t count for issur why don’t they count for
1) Some say that he did it as a gezerah or as a chashash not to include the bones of issur.
2) Chavos Daas (p21)- says that there is wetness (lachluchis) in the issur bones which
are assur. It should count for issur, and if not it should count for heter?
A) There is lachluchis that comes from issur bones, but they don’t have the ability to
give effect to other things in the taaroves, even though there is taam basar. This is why
the bones aren’t m’batel the rest of the taaroves (either for the issur or the heter b/c there
is taam issur already in the bones). Over here the taam issur will not become neutralized
in the bones b/c the bones have the same taam issur where the bones can only be
michazek the taam and not be m’batel the taam. The issur bones won’t spread taam
issur but also can’t neutralize taam issur either.

R’ Koenigsberg on the Rav- maybe the whole idea of being m’sha’ar the atzamos may
be like CNN (where you have to be m’batel the whole piece even if the issur is only in
one part). Maybe atzamos are really mutar, but the issur (the neveilah) makes them assur
(even if it is only one part), so you have to be m’batel the bones of the issur (like the
gemara in Chullin). This is a bit of a jump b/c this sugya might only be about shiuray

What about the kedairah (pot) itself to be m’batel the issur and m’sha’ar to the
Chullin 97b (p1)- the pot can be seen in one of two ways: 1) you use the “whole”
kedeirah or 2) the amount of heter bleios that were in the pot walls w/in 24 hours.
Chullin 98a (p1)- the gemara there says that the walls of the pot can’t be used b/c the
walls of the pot swallowed up heter food AND issur food, so how can you accept only the
heter part to be added to the heter in the pot.

How do you learn these 2 gemaros?

1) Rashi (97b) holds that the whole shittah of “kedairah” was negated by 98a and we
only look at the food inside of the pot. The gemara on 98a undermined the svara of 97b
and therefore we don’t use the pot walls at all.
2) Rambam- holds that we DO include the amount of the issur that was swallowed up
from the beleos of the kedairah.

Rashba (Toras HaBais) (p6) says that we are not m’sha’ar “kedairah atzmah” b/c this is a
deoritta question. We should only be m’sha’ar “what comes in front of us- l’funaenu”
(what is inside the pot). He is afraid of beleos b/c of the issur that is also in the wall.

Therefore, if you see that the issur didn’t shrink and the heter did, then you can be
mitztaref the pot walls and therefore Rashi and the Rambam can be saying the same
thing, perhaps.

Tur (p11)- says that the guf hakedairah DOESN’T COUNT.

Why wouldn’t it count?
1) R’ Koenigsberg from the Rav- says that the pot is not called part of the taaroves, but
R’ Simon doesn’t agree.
2) Perisha (p11)- the kedairah already has a lot of food in the pot wall, so that will
prevent things from entering into the pot walls.
What about kedairah chadasha? Even this case is “lo plug.”
[By a tref pot w/in 24 the pot walls would be used. The walls are always used l’chumrah.]

Rashba (p7)- makes a distinction b/t mb”m and mbs”m, he says that in cases of mb”m
the pot walls can be used, but in mbs”m the pot walls can’t be used b/c it is a question of
a deoritta.
S”A (p15/6)- quotes the Rashba.

[Bedek HaBais- [B”Y wrote a Bedek HaBais on his own B”Y]- by atzamos to be
mitztaref he says only mb”m or by mbs”m where there is a kfeliah, but not be mbs”m w/o
a kfeilah.]

What about eating the atzamos issur themselves?

Unless the pshat is like the Chavas Daas or there is moch, we should be able to eat the
bones of issur themselves.

Rambam (p17)- if you eat a neveilah, for the basar you get malkos, but for the bones and
the horn etc. you are patur b/c “they are not rauy l’achilah,” but the bones ect. are really
assur (even though they aren’t mitztaref to issur)! They are still a davar assur!

Would this Rambam be against the Mechaber who said like Yerushalmi Urlah- that
the issur bones are seen as mitztaref l’heter?

Gelatin is dried out (psul) and then reconstituted (does that undermine the psul)?

R’ Chaim Ozer (p18)- teshuva about gelatin (he is the big makil)- even though the
Shach/Ran are machmir by wet bones, if they are dried out then they are not lach
anymore. The Rambam is also not a problem b/c he too is talking about wet bones.
Maadanei Asher– says then the wet bones should be mitztaref to the issur!!

R’ Ahron Kotler (p20)- was the machmir shittah on gelatin b/c of “achshevei” (if
something is nifsal (assur) and you eat it and consider it chashuv to you and this is an
issur derabanan).
The Mechaber seems to be against the Rambam [b/c the Mechaber says that eating bones
is mutar] (even though nobody quotes this machlokes). The Rambam holds of achshevei
if you eat the piece of food, even though there is no taam in it. If the bones happen to be

in the pot then there is not a problem [b/c that isn’t achshevay]. R’ Kotler says that the
Rambam is only assur m’derabanan (and gelatin might be an issur derabanan).
[R’ Simon said it might be a deoritta.]

--Bones may be “yotzei min ha’assur” and that is why they are a problem.

Medicine and Vitamins

R’ Moshe says that medicine is not considered achshivei (R’ Belski said that vitamins
would need a hechser b/c you are eating them for their food/nutrients).

Chazarah on chulent
R’ Moshe and R’ Shlomo Zalman about chulent. R’ Moshe says we don’t eat the bones
and RSZ”A said that bones can’t be fully cooked, so you can’t put chulent back on the
fire. This is if they are eating the bones b/c bones are always getting softer.

Ain Mivatlin Issur L’chatchilah (A)
Shiur 15/ Nov 21- (M) Packet 15

Is AMIL an issur deoritta or derabanan?

I) Ra’avad: Sefer Issur Mashehu (p3)- deoritta, the penalties are only derabanan.
IIA) Chullin (98a-99a)- isn’t the case of zroah b’shailah a case of AMIL?
The gemara says that the case of ZB is a chiddush and therefore you can’t learn out from
ZB that MB”M is batel.
IIB) Rashi (p2)- says that the chiddush by ZB is AMIL. We learn from here that Rashi
holds that AMIL is a deoritta, b/c the gemara is talking about a chiddush on a Torah
Rashba: Toras HaBais- quotes Tosefos that the gemara in Chullin by ZB means that it is
a mitzvah to be m’vatel l’chatchilah. But by all other cases you can be m’vatel issur
l’chatchilah. So AMIL is a derabanan. We don’t find anywhere else that it is a mitzvah to
be m’vatel.
Most Rishonim say it is Drabanan and that is the normative view.

R’ Akiva Eger (Os 2) SHUT- brings a NM b/t the Rashba (derabanan) and the other
Ra’avad (deoritta):
N”M- according to the Raavid even shogeg would be assur, but if it’s only an issur
derabanan then shogeg would be mutar.
We pasken that if it’s mazid it’s assur but if it is shogeg it’s muttar

Nodah B’Yehudah SHUT (Question 45) (p7-8)- AMIL is a derabanan by lach b’lach,
but by yavesh b’yavesh where you mix a tref meat and kosher meat and being m’vatel
issur means that you are eating the bain issur b/c there is no iruv (mixture), this bitul
issur is an issur deoritta. ZB is a lach b’lach mixture.
This can explain a gemara in Chullin (140) (p9), by the case of the metzorah birds, where
one is shechted and one is sent away.
Q) If the metzorah wants to use birds from the ir hanedachas- can he use them for the
taharas hamitzorah?
A) The gemara says that he can’t use them.
Q) Is the issur of using the ir hanedachas bird only about the bird that is being shechted or
even the one that is being sent away?
It is clear that I can’t send out the bird from an ir hanedachas b/c it is assur b’hana’ah and
here it will be a michshol for others, but what about to shecht it?
A) If you can’t use it to send out, then also not to shecht.
Q) Should I always have to be worried about an ir hanedachas bird?
A) No, you have bitul. And, if you would send out the bird then it will be being m’vatel
the issur l’chatchilah.
The N”B says that this proves that there is no bitul by yavesh b’yavesh and AMIL is a

Baruch Taam- disagrees with the NB”Y b/c in this case b/c you aren’t trying to be
m’vatel the bird, only to send it out.

Being M’vatel an Issur Derabanan

Beitzah (4b) (p13)- wood that falls from a tree on Yom Tov into your oven and you put
wood that was prepared b/f Yom Tov on top of this wood that fell on Yom Tov (which is
The gemara says that AMIL only applies by an issur deoritta and not for an issur
Rashi- says that this is a davar sheyesh lo matirim (DSLM), so how is it mutar now?
A) Since the issur is getting burnt, in this case we don’t have the din of DSLM.

Rosh (p14)- just as you don’t have DSLM only when the issur is being burnt, therefore
the only time that you can be m’vatel issur l’chatchilah by an issur derabanan is when
the issur is getting burnt up.

Rashba (p5): Toras HaBais-

I) If the issur derabanan is right in front of me I can NOT put it into the heter, even by an
issur derabanan. But the case where I can be m’vatel is a case where the heter and issur
are already mixed, but not in a proper amount, then you can add more heter to achieve
the issur.
II) There can be 2 types of derabanans based on the Badei HaShulchan:
a) Ikkar deoritta: Basar Oaf B’chalav (chicken)- the roots of the derabanan are in basar
b’chalav, a deoritta.
b) Ikkar derabanan: Muktzah- is a brand new takanah w/o basis in the Torah.
Perhaps you can only be mosif by a derabanan that doesn’t have its source in the Torah,
but those derabanans that have there source in the Torah you can’t//
OR PERHAPS// a derabanan that has ikkar from the Torah you can be mosif, but a
derabanan that doesn’t have its source in the Torah you can even throw into a heter that
has the shiur bitul.

S”A (p24-5)- by an issur derabanan: you can’t throw it into the heter that has the shiur
bitul, but you can add heter to issur and heter in a taaroves (Original Rashba).
Ramah- quotes Rosh that you shouldn’t be m’vatel unless it’s getting burnt up and you
shouldn’t be MIL by even a derabanan.

Shach (99,19) (p25)- if you have leftover shemen in the menorah, it is assur b’hanaah.
He says that you can’t add to it.
BUT, Chanukah is only a derabanan, so how can it be assur?
[The Shach also says “yesh me sheomer”]
Chavas Daas/ Beis HaLevi (al HaTorah on Chanukah)- says there is a difference b/t an
issur hana’ah and the issur achilah. The ma’aseh bitul gives you hana’ah (now you
have more shemen) and that is assur.

Penalty if you are MIL
Mishna Terumos (p10)- if trumah fell into less than 100 and then more heter was added,
if it was mazid then you can’t eat it, if it fell shogeg then it is mutar.
Gittin (54b) (p11)- quotes a machlokes Tanaim on this issue.
--We paskin that we don’t have a knas on shogeg utu mazid.

Is the issur only on the person who did this bitul issur or even for others?
Rambam (p12)- says that you can be m’vatel issur m’deoritta. He says that there is a
knas derabanan. He also says that this is only on the person that did the averah and not
on someone else.
Rashba: (p5arrow2) Toras HaBais- disagrees, and says that the issur is not only on the
person who did the bitul, but also for anyone that the m’vatel did the issur for. We
don’t want the person who he had in mind to get benefit from it, b/c then the person who
did the bitul is getting hana’ah from it.
N”M: factories that are m’vatel for their customers or that the ingredients don’t write
anything that assur on the ingredients, can we ‘assume’ that it is kosher.

S”A (p15)- assumes this Rashba as the halacha.

Ramah- says that you can’t sell the bitul l’chatcholah to a Jew.
Shach- says that you can take a lesser price, but not the kosher price so that you don’t
gain from the issur. He thinks that the Issur V’heter’s statement that you have to give
away the bitul l’chatchilah “b’chinum” (free) is lav davkah and it really means, take the
lesser price.
Taz- this is only if the person that the person the owner is being m’vatel it for, knows that
the bitul is being done for him.
(AV: when he eats it, or only during the bitul.)

R’ Akiva Eger quotes the Teshuvas Rivash- if you have a store and you are m’vatel,
you are being m’vatel for all your customers. Any person who comes to the store to buy,
the bitul was for him. This is called “m’vatel ba’avuro” and not like the Taz. There is a
knas on this food and these people can’t buy the food.

What happens if the person who is m’vatel is a goy who is not commanded about
taaroves issur?
Perhaps the goy is being m’vatel the product for all the goyim and there was no tzivuy
from the Jew to the goy to do the bitul for him.
Radvaz (p27-8)- has a big chumrah: once you are buying from the goy, you have created
AMIL b/c you purchased the issur. You are putting yourself in a situation where you rely
on bitul. [If he just did it for you than it’s fine but if you’re going to by it than it is a
problem of AMIL.]
Badei HaShulchan (p29)- doesn’t think that this Radvaz is the normative psak. The knas
is only on the person who did the bitul and the person he did it for. He thinks that you can
give a hechsher on a food item that has non-kosher ingredients in it, if the issur is batel.
He says that the Radvaz would mean that every product is AMIL. People relied on this
for MANY years!

Darchei Teshuva (p35-6)- he quotes poskim that argue with the Radvaz, but he says that
perhaps once you give a hechsher it is WORSE b/c then you are commanding him to do
the bitul.
R’ Shachter- doesn’t think it is correct to give a hechsher if they are relying on bitul (b/c
of bein adam l’chavero).

Ma’aseh Shabbas
Magen Avraham (Hilchos Shabbas End of S”K 2)- bishul b’shabbas (ma’aseh shabbas):
cooking done b’mazid on Shabbas is assur to the person who did the act forever and to
others until after Shabbas. M”A says that this also includes any person that they did it for,
but then he backtracks and doesn’t make that comparison.

Rav Soloveichik- if you have a kosher bakery that works on shabbas then you can never
eat the cakes.
R’ Moshe Soloveichik- if we say that you can’t use something, that is not a knas, but we
helped you not violate the issur. This issur should also be the din for other people.
By shabbas, it is a knas on that person himself and not on others. The knas by bitul
would be more expansive and include more people than bishul which may only apply to
the m’vatel himself.
R’ Shachter- says that it seems to be a knas on the m’vatel in a case of bishul (?) as well
and therefore perhaps it too should apply to others.

Ain Mivatlin Issur L’chatchilah (B)
Shiur 16/ Nov 23- (W) Packet 16

A”Z (33a)- goyish wine that was kept in barrels (not cooked) for a long time, we assume
that the taam went into walls of the barrel.
Milue V’erui- you fill up the barrel with even cold water for 3 days (each times for 24
hours) and spill the water out after every day to kasher them. The gemara then asks about
other liquids and whether they can kasher the barrel (besides water, like beer etc.).
After you finish kashering with the water the gemara assumed that the water which was
used in the barrel could be drunk after the 24 hour period. The reason is that the taam
in the barrel will be negligible and that would be why you can drink the water. After 3
times all the taam will come out, but each days water has very little taam.

Q) Isn’t that an issue of AMIL?

I) Ran (p3)- chiddush- he says that AMIL means: if a person is starved and wants to eat 3
sandwiches and there are only 2 kosher ones in the store and then he buys a non-kosher
sandwich, and then he mixes them together, then he wants to get hanaah of the issur,
THAT IS AMIL. By the case of the water, the Jew is not interested in the taam of the
wine, but the Jew only wants the water itself. In such a case, this is not called AMIL b/c I
am using the water to drink and not for the taam of the wine.

Proof: In the war against Midian the Jews won dishes and if they would’ve waited 24
hours they would’ve been kosher, but the Jews wanted to eat now, so the Torah gave the
dinim of hechsher keilim.
In this case you created the issur of the water and the taam issur, so it should be a
problem of AMIL. The Ran says that these people didn’t get direct hanaah from the
bitul and that was why it was mutar to permit hagalas keilim. Therefore the Ran fels he is
correct. Here there is no hanaah from the issur.
[Rashi/Raavad/Issur Mashehu- say that AMIL is a deoritta. The Ran says that he must
be correct according to these opinions.]

Orchos Chaim (p5) (R’ Yosef Chaim M’Lunil)- also brings down this yesod of the Ran.
He brings down the story of a person who found his honey full with bugs. They told him
to warm up the honey until the bugs disintegrate and then filter the honey and the bugs
will be strained. But, even if you get the bugs out, isn’t there going to be a taam in the
honey (R’ Simon- perhaps it was pagum)? The O”C answers that here you are only
interested in the honey and not in having the taam nemalim in your honey.

S”A (84,13)(p6)- quotes this case of honey and bugs.

Shach (84, 38)- quotes the O”C
Be’er Hagolah- quotes that the O”C had this ma’aseh.

Rashba: Toras HaBais- if you have a kli and a little hot tref fell into the kli. The person
wants to know if he has to kasher his kli, b/c the taam of the tref will be batel in the next
meal b/c it is so minimal.

Based upon what we just learned it should not be a problem of AMIL b/c you don’t want
to taam of the issur? In terms of AMIL there shouldn’t be a problem b/c of the Ran and
the O”C. [Not everyone agrees with the Ran and O”C, and then they’ll have to explain
hagalah unless they say that AMIL is only a derbanan.]

By a kli she’darko l’histamesh b’shefa (a huge industrial pot), which is never used for a
little food, but we only use it for a significant amount then you wouldn’t have to kasher
the pot. Perhaps we can say that this huge pot where a little tref fell in that you can be
MIL, but not by a smaller pot where the pot isn’t be used for shefa all the time. He says
that if there is a little bleas issur in the KSLB it can be used even w/in 24 hours, b/c we
assume that it’ll be used b’shefa. By an everyday pot it wouldn’t always be batel so it is
NOT batel.

The Rashba brings a gemara A”Z as a source for his chiddush. Barrels used for A”Z
(wine) the taam that the wine will give in is minute amount therefore the taam that will
come out is minor and it is like a KSLB.
BUT, a non industrial pot is assur to use b/c of a gezerah b/c of nesinas taam and it must
be koshered.

Tur I (p13)- (like the Rashba) quotes the din of KSLB and that you don’t need to kasher
it. In a small kli you can’t even use it even if you are going to fill it to the top. [A soup
bowl (smaller bowl) that a person is going to fill to the top, isn’t considered KSLB from
a gezerah that he might fall into a michshol by using the pot for too little heter.]
Tur II (Hechsher Kalim): he says that a big kli is always batel, if it is a small kli he says
you can’t use it b/c of AMIL and does not say it is b/c of the gezerah.
1) We see from here that AMIL applies even if you’re NOT getting hanaah from the issur
(against the Ran)!
2) If the problem is AMIL then it should be a problem even in a case of KSLB b/c you
are still being ML?

[R’ Zalman Nechemiah- Kli that’s not darcho lehishtamesh beshefa- why is that assur
because of AMIL or a gezara*? (Question on Bechina).
Difference b/t the Turs- A kli that is not KSLB why is it assur, b/c of AMIL or a gezara?]
Isn’t the Rashba arguing with the Ran and if it is KSLB/]

Mechaber- quotes the halacha in two places as well. He says that AMIL is the problem
of hechsher kalim. This is a problem b/c the Mechaber quoted the O”C earlier and the
O”C says that AMIL doesn’t apply if you’re not getting hanahah from the issur!

Rashba/Ra’ah- don’t hold like the O”C and Ran.

Ra’ah- isn’t NTL an issue of AMIL? According to the Ran you are surely not interested
in the taam. [He argues with the Rashba and holds AMIL across the board.]
Rashba: Mishmeres HaBais- asks what the difference b/t a kederah that is aino bas yoma
and AMIL? The Ra’ah and Rashba? hold of AMIL at all times that a person is m’vatel
issur even if he is NOT getting hana’ah from the issur itself.

AMIL- they don’t say the simple answer “that they are not interested in the taam” like the
Ran/O”C would say.

What about the Ran’s proof from hechsher kalim?

(1) The proof is only if you hold AMIL is a deoritta.
(2) R’ Simon said that hechsher kalim could also be different b/c by hechsher kalim you
are throwing out the water and you are not getting hanaah from the water. The Rashba
can still make a distinction b/t hagalah and drinking the water afterward.

Q) If AMIL is the pshat, then why is KSLB mutar?

A) Maadane Asher (p21)- the Raah argues on the Rashba, he is a purist and says that
AMIL is always a problem and it is always assur and he argues with KSLB!

The problem is the Rashba. If you hold like the Raah all should be assur and like
the Ran/O”C all should be mutar? Is it a problem of AMIL then it should be a
problem by KSLB?

M”Asher- says that the Rashba might say AMIL is a gezerah that you might not do a
correct bitul. That is why if it is KSLB we are not worried about that b/c we are sure that
you’ll do a good bitul.
Where is this new gezerah? This new gezerah is AMIL (the new gezerah is that you
won’t do a good bitul.) This answers up both for the Tur and the Mechaber that it is the
same thing!

Nodeh B’Yehudah SHUT (p19)-

Q) Apple juice: they put a tref ingredient in to “clear up” the juice so there is no sediment
and not b/c you want to eat it. They left the fish in the juice for 24 hours so it’s nosen
taam, but it’s batel. Are you allowed to do this?
1) The fish is dried and has no taam?
2) Perhaps AMIL is only with hanaah, here I don’t want to eat the fish too, I want the
sediment to go to the bottom.
All in Poland were doing this and his uncle said it was assur.

A) The Ran/O”C should say it is mutar, the Ra’ah should say it’s assur and the Rashba
would say that this case is different according to the NB”Y b/c in the other cases we are
adding heter into issur to be matir, but in this case we are adding the issur into the heter to
fix it.
-- NB”Y’s yesod is- something that was already nisarev, then you can use heter to be
m’vatel it when you are not getting any hanaah from the issur and you can use the water
you were m’vatel with (ie the water from the wine cask), but you can’t throw in tref
(b’yadaim and with kavanah) even if you are not planning on getting any hanaah from it
and be MIL.

Beriah (Issur Mashehu) (I)
Shiur 17/ Nov 28- (M) P17 YD 100

Beriah- a whole unit of creation: (ex: gid hanashe is a natural creation). A beriah will not
be batel in a taaroves.
Beriah exists in other places in the Torah m’deoritta and this principle was brought from
those other areas to taaroves to create an issur derabanan.

Makkos (13a)- eating tevel is an issur deoritta, but what is the shiur?
1) R’Shimon says that all you need to be chayav is a kol shehu.
2) Chachamim say kzais.
R”S says that it is a kol shehu b/c of sheretz. A sheretz is not always a kzais, but b/c it is
one full unit of creation, you are liable to malkos if you eat the whole unit even if it is
less than a kzais. R”S compares one bug to one kernel. This “unit of creation” has its own
chashivus and therefore it should be chayav for malkos even for less than a kzais.
Chachamim- said that the bug is only assur b/c it is a beriah, but that is no rayah to
R”S- answered that just as nemalah (bug) is an issur, so too is a chittah.

Makkos (17a)- finished the conversation:

Chachamim- a beriah needs to have been alive at one point to be given the extra
chashivus of beriah, and a kernel was never alive.

Chullin (102b) (p3)- if you eat a whole kosher bird while it is alive you get malkos b/c of
aver min hachay (even less that a kzais), but once the bird is dead, then the din of beriah
is removed and you only get malkos if you eat a kzais of the kosher bird (ie: if it had
incorrect shechitah).
If the bird is a non-kosher bird, then it has the “shem beriah” whether it is alive or dead.
Therefore, you can get malkos for eating less that a kzais of a non-kosher bird even after
Rashi- one of the requirements of beriah is that the item must have had the issur from its
birth (onset). (Ex: a non-kosher bird was always a non-kosher bird and will always be
one, but a neveilah was not always a neveliah.)
(“metichilas beriaso”).

When a beriah is in a taaroves is it batel?

Chullin (99a-b)- says that a gid hanashe isn’t batel b/c “beriah is different.”
Ritvah (p5)- says that the fact that the beriah is chashuv by malkos (by other issurim),
the gemara extended this chashivus to taaroves (and a beriah is not batel).
Taz (p17)- says that the chachamim were machmir by taaroves (like the Ritvah). This is
an extension.
SHUT Maharil- says that a beriah might not be batel in a taarovoes m’din deoritta!!

R’ Shachter- says that many of his chiddushim are b/c he tries to find out which issurim
the chamimim used to extend to the derabanan (which issurim they patterned the issur
derabanan after).

Ran (Chullin)- there are several criteria for the food to fulfill before they are to be called
a beriah: 3 conditions
1) It must be intrinsic in the thing. Many issurim aren’t intrinsic and they come later in
the life of the animal.
2) Must be a berias neshama.
3) The unit must be together (the whole bug must be together) and must be consumed as
a unit.

Is chelev a beriah?
I) Ran- says that chelev isn’t called a beriah b/c: IT ISN’T ALL IN ONE PLACE AND

II) Rosh (p10)- has another svara- he is against the Ran’s svara- he says that if you got
“all the chelev on the kerev” then you have one beriah and another piece of chelev is
another beriah.
PRINCIPLE OF ROSH- Beriah is something that is called its name only when it is a
whole unit. If the name remains even after the issur is cut up, then it is NOT a
beriah. Chelev is called chelev even in a small amount (not as part of the animal when it
is whole), so that is a beriah. The gid hanashe is only called a gid when it is whole, but it
is not called a gid when it is cut up. Neveilah is not only called neveilah “as a whole unit”
but it is even called a neveilah “when it is cut up.”

Makkos (16b)- if you grind up 9 bugs and mix them with one complete bug. For the
beriah (whole bug) you get 5 issurim and for the other 9 you only get malkos when the
aggregate amount equals a kzais of neveilah. The gemara says that you only get 6 malkos
and not 51 malkos, therefore you see that it must be complete to get malkos on a beriah.

Rash (Terumos)- the beriah would seem to be an issur mashehu and not be batel in rov
or 60. The Rash says this is not true b/c a beriah is batel in 960, based upon a Mishna
and a Yerushalmi.
Mishnah Terumos (10,5)- dag tameh that is mixed into other fish, if you have 960
kosher to non-kosher it is mutar OR 10 zuz in a grav then it is mutar.
1) grav= 2 sa’ah,
2) Sa’ah= 24 lug, (48)
3) Lug= 2 litrin, (96)
4) Liter=100 zuz (9600)

Rashba: Toras HaBais (p12/3)- quotes the Rash and says that beriah is different from
other issurim of mashehu, b/c a beriah is batel in 960.

Most other Rishonim don’t learn the mishna the way the Rash learned the mishna. They
don’t read the mishna as discussing a yavesh b’yavesh case. They learn that “kevishah”
has a potent taam until 960.
The Rash learns the mishna differently. He says that the line that begins “kol grav” is a
new line about beriah that has nothing to do with nesinas taam line (the first line of the
mishna). The pashut pshat in the mishna is like the other mefurshim and discussing
nesinas taam, so this Rash is a little bit of a chiddush.
Nobody brings down this chiddush l’halacha, but perhaps it can be used to be matir the
water and the bugs.

Plesi (p25) (R’ Yonasan Eibeshitz)- there are bugs that form in fruit, he says that he can
be matir “if you don’t see the bugs.” He says that the bugs are only assur “once they are
purush” (once they leave the fruit and come outside) and therefore these bugs are just like
neveilah and can’t be a beriah. This is b/c they aren’t assur until they leave the fruit. (The
fact that the bugs must be perush is a gezairas hakatuv from “sheretz hashoretz al ha-
Pischei Teshuva- quotes the Plesi.

In the summer there are probably bugs in the grain that are “visible with the eye” so why
is it mutar based upon beriah? Use R’ Eibeshitz’s kullah and some disagree.

Badei HaShulchan/ Sefer HaEshkol (p24)- says that the requirement of beriah is that
there is an issur that is present “techilas beriaso” and those issurim that happen naturally
in the life of the beriah.
Shor ha’niskal is not naturally formed thing and therefore a shor ha’niskal that is mixed
into a taaroves is not called a beriah and can become batel b/c it wasn’t born a shor
ha’niskal and it isn’t a natural thing.
The svara of the S”H is NOT that the animal was born with the issur, but an animal can
be considered a beriah of issur if it will naturally form a issur in its natural life-cycle,
even if the animal was mutar when it was born (like coming out of the fruit for these
[What about neveilah, that is also the natural life-cycle of the animal and should also be
a beriah according to the svara of the S”E?]

Chavas Daas- somes to argue with the Plesi- (something about the Rambam).MISSED
Why isn’t neveilah a beriah?
What about “aino zevuchah”- an animal needs to be sheched, this is an “issur assey” of
requiring shechitah?
We don’t say that something is a beriah even though there is an issur assey of “aino
zevuchah” even though the issur assey is always there.
Is the issur intrinsic (beriah) or did it come from a davar acher (not a beriah)?
The case of the sheretz is the normal way of the issur, that it comes out of the fruit and
goes onto the aretz. The point is not if it was created that way, but the issue is
whether the issur comes from something internal or externally created. If something
unnatural happened then it’s not a beriah.

[What about neveilah- would be considered a davar acher gorem lo.]

Egg and ephroach

S”A (p17/9)- an egg that has an ephroach- what happens if it gets mixed up in others
(quotes the Rosh).
Shach (100,2) (p19)- what about an egg that has blood in it, which means it was fertilized
and then it didn’t form. He says that Maharam Ibn Chabib says it is a beriah, but the
Shach says that there was no neshama and it’s not a beriah. A beriah needs a neshamah.
He’s not so sure that a bezas ephroach then he’s not so sure b/c it’s not a full neshamah.
Be’er Haetev- also says that a blood spot isn’t a problem.
Shach (100,4)- a good chicken that became a trefah is also not a beriah b/c it wasn’t a
trefah forever.
Q) Why does the Shach say “kol sheken” a trefeah?
A) Gileon Maharsha- says that there is more svara to say that a trefah is a beriah, b/c it
is a super-aino zevuach and it may be “assur from the beginning” but the neveilah is not
from the beginning.
[This implies that aino zavauch doesn’t count to create a beriah.]

Brachah Acharonah
These aren’t the normal criteria of beriah, b/c a grape isn’t a berias neshamah.
Pri Megadim- a piece of grain isn’t a beriah, but perhaps the chachamim said that you
make a bracha acharonah by a “beriah”
Tosefos Berachos- says that R’ Yochanan said a bracha acharonah even though he didn’t
eat a kzais (b/c he left out the pit)
Yerushalmi Berachos-
S”A (p30)- there is a safek (Tos. is b’safek), so it is not right to eat one grape.

Beriah (Issur Mashehu) (II)
Shiur 18/ Nov 30- (W) P18 YD 100

Chullin (96b)- there is an issur to eat the gid hanashe. The mishna says that the gid has a
taam that would have to be m’batel in a taaroves.
Chullin (99b)- R’ Yochanan ben Brokah says “ain b’gidim b’nosen taam”
Gid Hanashe- is a machlokes taanaim whether there g”h has a “nosen taam.” If it has no
taam, then the Torah prohibited something like “wood” and “etz hu, ela haTorah osarto.”

What if a g”h was in a taaroves and it then disintegrated/melted into the pot assuming
“ain b’gidim b’nosen taam (the way we paskin)?”
I) Rashba Bais HaKatzar- even though we hold “ain b’gidim” we need 60 if the gid
liquefied. [This may be from a chashash deoritta or derabanan.]
One could argue that you don’t require 60 d’rabanan b/c if it can’t come to issur taam
then there should never be the requirement of 60 b/c the chachamim wouldn’t have
created the issur.
Tur (p5)- says that you need 60 against it.
Ramban- 60 is required l’chumrah

II) Minchas Kohen- doesn’t think that this should be true. He thinks that the only reason
why the chachamim extended past batel b’trei was for taam, and here there is no chashash
of taam, so there is no reason to extend the amount needed past chad b’trei.
At first glance this is what you would’ve said b/c “acharei rabim l’hatos” applied and you
don’t require 60 m’deoritta b/c there is no taam.

The M”K says that this shittah of the Rashba might be the Rashba l’shitaso- the Rashba
discusses when teimas kfeilah is needed. He says that you can use a kfeilah only if the
issur was cooked and then removed, but he says that when the issur was in the taaroves
we feel that the kfeilah might have “missed” the taam in the taaroves. Perhaps this is the
extension of this Rashba by g”h. If the g”h is in the taaroves then you still require 60.

Perhaps g’h has a taam kalush

Chavas Daas (100,4) (p14)- shittah of the Or Zaruah by bones was that they don’t count
for issur or heter. The C”D says that he doesn’t think that the g”h has “no taam,” but that
“ain b’gidim” means that the issur has a taam kalush. He says that the taam kalush can’t
come out of the gid during cooking, but if you eat the gid itself, then you are eating the
taam (b/c you are eating the gid itself) therefore it will assur the taaroves.
R’ Ahron Soloveichik- says that all machlokes in metzius should be made into a
machlokes of halacha. The issue here would be that the gid has some taam, but does that
taam reach the status of “taam” is what they are arguing about.

Bugs in the vegtables

S”A- if you have a bowl of soup and a bug fell in and you can’t find it, then the whole
bowl is assur as the Badei HaShulchan says- b/c it isn’t batel.
Cooked vegetables- if you see that there are 3 bugs in the cooked vegetables (3: based
upon the creation of a chazakah).

Badei HaShulchan (100,46) (p21)-gives an overview of 4 halachos by bugs in a mixture:
1) Miut sheano matzuy- even l’chatchilah you don’t need to check for bugs. There is a
din of the Torah of rov and chazakah. Min HaTorah we can follow rov. M’derabanan we
don’t need to check unless there is a safek.
[If you have a vegetable and this type of vegetable generally has no bugs or very unlikely
to have bugs then it is considered a “miut sheano matzuy.”]
By shechitah we also follow rov and chazakah- we only check an animal for trefos in
those places in the animal where it is shechiach, but not where it isn’t. We look at the
lungs of the animal b/c it is more shechiach (it is matzuy) and it requires bedikah
m’derabanan b/c m’deoritta it would be muttar. If you lost the lungs b/f the bedikah then
it is a safek d’rabanan.
Ramah- only permits the cow when the lungs were lost if there is a hefsed m’rubah.
This is also relevant for checking for shatnez. If you can’t check it, and it is a “miut
sheano matzuy” then it is mutar to use.
2) Miut Hamatzuy- there is a chiuv m’derabanan to check the food for bugs. What
percentage makes it a ms”m? Even if it is less than a 50% chance you must check, and if
there is a safek you must go l’chumrah.
3) Safek Hashakul- there is a chiuv deoritta to check the bugs. But, once the vegetables
were cooked then they are mutar to eat from a sfaik sfaikah: 1) perhaps this one didn’t
have the bugs (of the good 50%) and 2) perhaps the bugs broke apart and then they
wouldn’t be beriah and would be batel.
4) Muchzak b’tolaim- if you saw three bugs in your vegetables, even if you will wash
them, you can’t eat them b/c we assume that there are bugs in these vegetables. If you
want to eat this then you must do a thorough bedikah checking each leaf b/f using it.

Mekoros for this Halachah

Chullin (3b) If someone is doing shechitah they are assumed to be a “mumcheh”
Rosh- if someone says he knows how to shecht I don’t need to give him a bechinah. This
is only if the shochet is not around anymore, but if he is around, then we have to give
him a test, b/c there are many shochtim who shecht and don’t know what they are doing.
There is a miut hamatzuy of shochtim that shecht w/o knowing how to shecht.
S”A- quotes the halacha that you need to test him if he is still around.

Pesachim (p27)- if you rent a house on the 14th of Nissan you can assume that the home-
owner that you are renting from did bedikah. The gemara says b’ferush that if the owner
was there in front of you then you have to ask, if he is not in front of you then you don’t
need to do and find out.

Ran- difference b/t matzuy and aino matziy- there are certain spots in the lungs (rayah)
that you have to check b/c they are a miut hamatzuy.

What is the percentage?
Different people give different source for this but there are 2 classical sources:

SHUT Rivash- it is karuv to 50%, if it is 50% then it is shakul. This is a huge kullah
and we are generally more machmir, “he says “karuv l’mechtzah”
Mishkanot Yaakov SHUT- says 10% is a miut hamatzuy and you can use it.
Source is Gittin (31a) where the gemara says that you can eat fruit which didn’t have
terumah taken from it if the rest of the fruit is in another location, you can prevent the
terumah from being assur by verbally placing the issur terumah on some of the grain in
your house.
The gemara says that there is a chovas bedikah in the fruit 3 times a year to make sure
that the fruit didn’t spoil and as long as you do this you can rely on the chazakah that they
are fine.
Bava Basrah- says that in every 100 fruit he must assume that there are 10 rotten ones,
b/c that is normal.
The fruit rots at a rate of 10% and you must check the fruit, so the shiur is 10% b/c the
chovas bedikah means there is a miut hamatzuy.
Rav Soloveichik- says 12.5% b/c that is the percentage of the trefos they find in the
lungs and you must check the lungs.

Why three bugs?

I) Yevamos Mishnah (p18)- if a couple is married for 10 years and they have no children,
the husband can either take another wife or divorce her to be m’kayaim peru v’revu.
Q) Can she remarry a man who didn’t have children?
A) She is able to remarry and stay with her new husband for 10 years.
Q) When is there an issur for a man to marry her if he didn’t have kids?
A) The gemara says that if she was married twice and it didn’t work with the 2nd husband,
then she can’t remarry a husband who didn’t do pru u-rvu b/c there is already a chazakah
according to Rebbi.
2) This is also Rebbi’s shittah by children dying by the bris milah.
RSB”Gamliel- says if three children died, then on the 4th you don’t give a bris milah.
3) If a woman gets married and every husband she marries dies, can she marry a 3rd
husband or 4th husband.
4) This is relevant to vestos- does it need to happen 2 or three times.

How do we paskin 2 or 3 times?

Rosh (p20)- says that we hold 3 times for vestos, except by milah and nesuin (husband
kept dying). We say 2 times is the psak by cases of safek nefashos (2 times is chazakah.)
S”A (p22)- says that you need 3 bugs.
Taz- brings the Rosh and says that this isn’t a nefashos case so you require 3 bugs.

How much do you look at?

What if you are a hotel and not merely a household- if you see 3 bugs in a huge amount
of food, are you going to check every leaf?

R’ Elyashiv SHUT- R’ Shwab and R’ Luben were sent to R’ Elyashiv to ask him this
question about restaurants, summer camps, hotels ect. Can you do something to un-
muchzak the vegetables (perhaps salt water) where the bugs will come to the top?
R’ Elyashiv said that salt water should be used and then wash the vegetables assuming
that you found three bugs.

Chaticha HaRauya L’Hischabed
Shiur 19/ Dec 5- (M) Packet 19 S”A 101

CH”L- is a piece of food that someone would give a guest and m’derabanan it is not

Chullin (96b)- if you have a chaticha of nevilah and you remove it then you can eat the
other pieces, but if you don’t know which is the issur, all are assur.
Chullin (100a)- shouldn’t the piece be batel b’rov? The mishna is talking about CH”L.
“Es shedarko l’manos”- only things that are ALWAYS counted are chasuv enough not
to be batel.
“Kol shedarko l’manos”- even things that are sometimes counted isn’t batel.

Rif- doesn’t quote CH”L from mishna A”Z (74a) which says that there are certain things
that are not batel, and it left out neveilah and chametz b’pesach. This mishna requires
davar she’biminian and assur b’hana’ah. This mishna implies that only these things aren’t
Rif (p6)- quotes the mishna of A”Z and he says that we only say that the issurim
enumerated in the mishna aren’t batel.
S”A- holds of CH”L.

Rosh (p8)- discussion of ch”l matters:

Asurah machmas atzmah (it must be a piece of meat that is intrinsically assur, not that
it swallowed issur,) not machmas beliah.
The exception to the rule is basar b’chalav which is a beliah, but is considered an issur
atzmah b/c the meat turns into issur of B”B.
S”A (p19)- it must be assur machmas atzmah.
Shach- says that this is the new form of the issur and is Ch”l even through a beliah.

RAW MEAT: If you go to the grocery store and you buy 5 pieces of meat and the pieces
are raw. Is raw meat considered rauy l’hischabed? Does it lose its ability to become ch”l
later (ie if you buy it raw)? Do you need to by it cooked or is it fine to buy it raw and
know that eventually it will be able to be ch”l?
Rosh- quotes I) “some gedolim” who say that you have to buy a “cooked piece” but the
II) Rosh says they are “divrei hevel” and as long as it can come to the potential of being
rauy for a guest they are not batel. The perspective should be from size, not whether it
was cooked.

SHALEM (whole animal): What happens if you have 3 animals and one is tref and you
would say chad b’trei, but, is this whole lamb ch”l? The Rosh would say that it is CH”L
in this case. This is a din of chashivus- and this is more chasuv than even a regular steak.

FEATHERS- what happens when there are feathers on the animal? Does the one animal
that is tref, make all the others tref?
That is why they keep the feathers on longer in the kashrus agency, so the animals
won’t be batel so you don’t have shailos.

This machlokes b/t the Rosh and gedolim is in the Rashba as well and he may also be
one of these gedolim.
Rashba argues with the Rosh and says that the piece of meat can’t be too big or too
small. (It must be rauy to give at that time—Av.)

Smak (p13)- if the animal still has its feathers on it, it is not ch”l. Smak says that he can
be m’chalek, perhaps if the piece of meat only needs cooking is not a “big enough deal”
but requiring de-feathering might be a lot.
Shaare Durah (p15)- brings down a story from R”T (called R’ Yaakov) that one tref got
mixed with 2 kosher animals and it was before the feathers were removed and R’ Taam
permitted the animals.

How do we paskin about these questions?

S”A (p21)- says I) that a piece of meat that wasn’t salted isn’t ch”l, b/c of baluah inside.
II) K’dei kelipah (then the klipa is assur), but that piece of meat isn’t ch”l.
(101,3) the mechaber says that meat that has feathers is batel, b/c he paskins like the
gedolim that it must be cooked, correct size (against the Rosh).
Ramah- says l’chain nohagin: that the animal is batel. The Ramah says that if the animal
is missing a davar gadol, then it isn’t ch”l, but just missing cooking isn’t a problem.

Shach (101,13)- says that the ideas of chashivus is based upon zman and makom.
Rambam- says that chashivus is based upon that time period and that place.
[Av: Is it the community or the person, how subjective is it?]

S”A (p25)- ch”l is only not-batel if it is whole, and not if it is cut up (unless it is done

Nodeh B’Yehudah SHUT (p26)- one woman asked her friend for two metal trays for
baking. She forgot to tell her that they were meat, and the friend made milchig food on
them and she didn’t say that she used them for milk. Now the original woman cooked
meat on these trays that day and she also used 7 other trays of food; (assuming ben
The kreplach are only assur machmas beliah, but perhaps B”B is different. To assur he
thinks is a mistake b/c when you have a piece of meat and the chalav is baluah in the
piece of meat- then there is an issur baluah. The ikkar chaticha is the davar heter of the
dough. In the dough there will be chalav and basar- when it is aino rauyah l’hischabed.
But here the ikkar is not the meat, but the dough.
You aren’t mischabed someone with belios of basar b’chalav, only the bain (real

Nodeh B’Yehudah SHUT (p28)- an animal had a hole in it, so it was tref, and it fell into
a taaroves, so it should be batel. On the other hand it is ch”l.
He says that it was not a ch”l b/c he quotes the Ramah- says that the big stuff is a
problem (take off feathers- called m’chusar ma’aseh and a tirchah gedolah), but to do a

small thing, it isn’t a problem. To remove the gid and the chelev, that is big stuff so the
animal isn’t ch”l.
Quotes a Tos.- does ch”l mean that the meat must be rauy for a Jew to eat or is it enough
for it is rauy for a goy? He says that it must be rauy for a Jew to eat and not a goy.

Pesachim- there are 2 boxes of food with 2 sections per box: I) A)trumah/B)chullin and
II) C)trumah/D)chullin- C fell into A or B, and D fell into A or B. By derabanan we can
be makil and assume terumah into terumah and chullin into chullin.

S”A (110,6) (p34)- if someone ate one piece of a taaroves b’shogeg, can I assume that
that person ate the tref piece?
Rashba says that by a din derabanan we can assume that the one that fell was the assur
piece. The one piece must be gone forever, not that it is still there or else we have to
paskin on that piece and we would have to say it is assur and therefore the rest of the
taaroves it fell from would be assur.
Maharsham- says that it must be gone, but even a pachos m’kzais is not allowed to exist
or else we have to make a judgment on that piece, so the taaroves won’t be muttar.

Shach- ch”l is both by mb”m and mbs”m. He says that it is a davar chasuv and isn’t
Issur V’heter- says only mb”m.
Pri Megadim- says like the Shach.

Chelkas Yoav- he wants to put together ch”l and ribis.

B”M (74a)- a person wants to give money to buy future harvested grapes. He wants to
give the money now so he can get the future profits. The problem is that, if the grapes
aren’t ready to be bought yet, this might be a ribis problem. If the grapes would’ve been
worth much more, then giving money now will get you more money later, and that is
ribis. But, if the grapes already exist somewhat then he can give the money.
The gemara discussed what is too far in advance: if two things are missing, then you can
give money as if it is yours, but three things it is too far removed and it would be safek
The Chelkas Yoav quotes the Ramah that a chatichah gedolah is missing a maaseh gadol
and therefore it’s not ch”l (like the Smak). He doesn’t know why plucking feathers is
such a big deal. By hilchos ribis he shows that missing 3 melachos are a different realm
of “ain lo” by ribis, therefore by the animal, if it is missing 3 melachos then it can’t be
ch”l, but 2 or less is ch”l. He says that feathers requires, removing feathers, melichah and
bishul so there are three steps and it is too far removed. This is way he explains the
The raw animal is only missing 2 steps, so it is already ch”l. Therefore, if you want to do
tzli and not melichah, then it is only missing 2 steps and you don’t need melichah, so then
it WOULD be a ch”l and not batel.

Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirim (1)
Shiur 20/ Dec 7- (W) P20 YD 102 (1987 R’ Moshe Dimmerman/ Morasha Kollel)

Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirim (DSLM)- classic case: beizah shenoldah b’yom tov. There
are 4 opinions about why it is assur (muktzeh). This beitzah is a DSLM and is not batel in
a taaroves.
I) DSLM defies the rule of bitul
II) DSLM also defies the rule of safek derabanan l’kullah

Machlokes Ran and Rashi with the N”M

What is the svara about why we are machmir by a DSLM?
I) Rashi Beitzah (3b) (p1)- says that DSLM is only a din derabanan. He also explains that
the reason for DSLM is that you shouldn’t eat it b’issur when you can eat it b’heter.
Maharsham- isn’t the din of bitul a heter? He says that DSLM shows that there is a
reason NOT to hold of bitul and there is some b’dieved.

If bitul is a l’chatchilah, why should there be a reason to be machmir on the bitul?

Badei HaShulchan (p7)- maybe chazal should’ve made a chumrah not to allow bitul b/c
it will lead to zilzul issurim, but they didn’t b/c they were more afraid of hefsed
mammon yisrael. In a case of DSLM there is no hefsed mammon and therefore the
chachamim would’ve made a takanah in this area (slippery slope theory).
This helps to explain how Rashi isn’t saying that bitul is a b’dieved.

II) Ran Nedarim (52a) [Telzer Ran- too much philosophy]- [the S”A/Shach don’t quote
the Ran]- there is a fundamental difference b/t beriah/ ch”l and DSLM. Although
beriah/ch”l are NOT batel in mbm and mbsm, DSLM is batel in mbsm.
Beriah/CH”L are dinim of chashivus so there is no difference b/t mbm and mbsm.
The Ran comes to explain what the difference is b/t the dinim of beriah and ch”l vs.

1) The dam par (greater) and dam sair (smaller) and the sair isn’t batel in the taam.
The concept of bitul is that there is a clash b/t issur and heter and the heter wins if it is
2) The opinion of R”Y who says mbm isn’t bitul is b/c things are too similar and there is
NO clash. According to the Rabanan- the fact that one dam is mutar and one is assur,
from that perspective there is a clash and therefore you can have bitul.
3) When it comes to a DSLM, even though the chachamim say they only need a halachik
clash (assur and heter), when the issur is going to become mutar the next day ultimately
that is not as much of a clash. This clash is only needed by mbm where the taam isn’t a
clash, but by mbs”m there is already a taam clash and a halachik clash is not needed.

R’ Moshe Dimmerman- quoted the Pnei Yehoshua (R’ Simon couldn’t find it)- the Ran
has to agree to Rashi- the Ran’s svara is only a svara in bitul taaroves, but the issue is
why you don’t say safek derabanan l’kullah. [Ran must agree to Rashi that there is no
safek l’kullah b/c of “ad she’tichlena b’issur tichlena b’heter.”]

Nafkah Minah b/t Rashi and Ran

Tzamach Tzedek (not the Lubavitch sefer)- if you have a tref bird that laid an egg on
yom tov, it has 2 problems (tref and yom tov) and then this egg fell into a taaroves.
From the perspective of DSLM: the yom tov issur is YLM, but not the tref part.
Do we say that we should wait until tomorrow and be m’vatel the issur of yom tov,
or b/c the issur trefah will never be batel, we can eat the taaroves on yom tov?

Pri Migadim (p3):

A) If you hold like Rashi it would seem that you should wait until tomorrow and rely on
one bitul.
B) According to the Ran who requires a clash, the trefah should provide a clash even on
yom tov, therefore there should be bitul on yom tov and the taaroves can be eaten.

Differences b/t Beriah/CH”L and DSLM

Pri Megadim (p4)- he says that DSLM is sometimes more chamur:
a) DSLM does not need to be shalem,
b) defies the rule of safek l’chumrah.
Kullos: batel by mbsm (taam).

Badei HaShulchan- (found in Kanfei Yonah)- found a reason for why DSLM isn’t
batel: people are going to see these issurim as issure kal, b/c the issur is falling off
tomorrow, so they will violate the issur. Therefore the chachamim said that it isn’t batel.

Sfaik Sfaikah
We use SS to matir even issurei deoritta. The question is about a DSLM SS where we
don’t have the regular rules of bitul and safek derabanan.
What is the din by SS DSLM? We don’t rely on safek derabanan l’kullah by DSLM,
but can we rely on SS?

EX: Chadash- we want to know if the grain is chadah? Perhaps you can be matir, or do
you say that it is a DSLM (b/c after Pesach it will be mutar)? Why rely on it now if it will
DSLM apply?
SS- perhaps it is yashan and not chadash and perhaps even if it was made this year, it
may be that it rooted in the previous year (and now it may be in a taaroves).

Machlokes Rishonim based upon Gemara Beitzah

Beitzah (3b)- an egg is mixed into 1000. The question is what type of egg got mixed
I) Rabbenu Taam (R’ Yaacov)- says that it is vadai noldah on Yom Tov and is only one
safek therefore DSLM applies, but if it was a safek noldah then it will be a sfaik sfaikah
and all SSs are mutar even by DSLM.
II) Mordechai (pg 10) disagrees and says that the beitzah being discussed is a safek
issur and STILL the gemara said that DSLM applies. This means that SS does NOT
apply to a case of DSLM.

III) Rosh SHUT- when we drink chadash beer and we don’t wait until pesach for the
zman of yashan- we have a safek yashan/chadash and they were treating this as a SS
(safek yashan and even if chadash, safek whether it rooted in the previous year)?
Mahram (?)- says SS DSLM is mutar.
Rosh- says that SS DSLM is really mutar and the reason why the gemara in Beitzah says
that the safek egg was not batel was b/c beitzah is an exceptional case [R”T said the
gemara is talking about a vaday egg]. The Rosh says that it can still be the safek egg (and
SS is mutar). SO why isn’t it assur?

Shach (p12)- in order to have a SS, it may need that one issur unit fell into 100 units and
from those 101 units they fell into a 2nd batch. When you look at the 2nd batch, you don’t
know if the bad one fell in and then you don’t know whether the think you are taking out
know isn’t the issur.
SS is usually mutar, but there is a difference b/t a SS by safek b’guf and a SS by a safek
b’taaroves. The Shach says that the case of beitzah is not a real SS b/c there is one safek
about the guf of the issur (whether it is a yom tov egg) and another about the taaroves
(whether the egg you chose was the issur). We can’t use one safek about the guf and
another on the taaroves. This is not a good SS or else it would’ve been good.
[Rosh/Shach is like the R”T for the Halacha and the Mordechai when explaining the
gemara in Beitzah.]

Bedek HaBais (Ra’ah)- (argues on the Rosh): the Ra’ah feels that SSs are mutar, so why
aren’t we matir by SS? Ra’ah isn’t happy with safek echad b’guf etc.

He says that we only say SS l’kullah by a deoritta when

a) Teshuvas Rashba- it is a beirur (clear): using the rov principle,
b) Pri Megadim- if safek deoritta l’chumrah is a rabanan, then all safek deorittas are
derabanan, then SS is a derabanan.

The Ra’ah does not agree with the svara of the P”M and he says that a safek deoritta
l’chumrah is a din deoritta. The only time that a SS can work is when the first safek is
based upon a din derabanan. If the first safek is a din deoritta then the second safek is
only a safek on a deoritta and not safek derabanan l’kullah.
EX: If the egg falls into one taaroves and then into a 2nd taaroves then it is a safek
derabanan and SS can be said.
EX2: If the egg is a safek deoritta (b/c of hachana d’rabbah [preparing from Shabbas to
Yom Tov- an issur deoritta]) then we can’t say SS b/c the second safek is on a deoritta!!

Chametz B’Pesach
DSLM isn’t batel only is a case of mbm, but in a mbsm case it is batel (Ran).
Rambam (p15)- writes that DSLM is not batel by mbsm. He says that chametz b’pesach
is isn’t batel b/c it is a DSLM? His chiddush is that chametz is not batel even in a mbsm
case b/c of the pasuk “kol machmetzes lo tocheilu.” He says that chametz is different by
mbsm and he seems to be saying a chiddush about other issurim that they are batel by
Raavad- says that it is a mishna shlaima, so what is Rambam’s chiddush.

Nedarim- if you make a neder about an apple and then you have that apple in a taaroves,
does bitul occur?

1) Is this is a DSLM b/c it can be undone and the neder is retroactively undone.
A neder is not a DSLM b/c they are retroactively undone. A DSLM means that something
that was assur is now mutar. By nedarim, the neder is considered as if it never existed so
PERHAPS it is not considered a DSLM.
2) OR// maybe when the chacham is mater the neder it is only l’habah and not

Yerushalmi (p16)-brings a list of YLM and Ain LM and it decides that nedarim is YLM.
Pnei Moshe- thinks that this depends upon the nature of the hataras chacham, whether it
is ikar m’ikarah or m’kan ulhabah. DSLM means that once it was assur and now it is
mutar. [The Ran would say that a retroactive bitul ha’neder would not have a clash and
therefore it would NOT be batel.]

Why is DSLM only be mb”m?

I) Ran- clash
II) Toras Chatas- quotes the Issur V’heter that beriah is batel by mbsm and not mbm.
---- TC says that the I”V is wrong from a bug in lettuce (and this is mbsm). He says
something different that the Ran who asks about the difference b/t mbm and mbsm.
-- TC argues that when the taaroves is “nikrah al shem heter” it is mutar. By mbsm the
taaroves is called by shem heter so it is mutar, but by mbm it is called by shem issur so it
is assur.
Rabbi Simon thought this sounded like the Badei HaShulchan.

When the Shach (p20) quotes this din- he doesn’t mention the Ran, but he quotes the TC.
S”A says that DSLM doesn’t apply to mbsm.

Ramah- quotes the Mordechai that egg white if it is used l’chazusa (for whitening of the
food) is not batel.

Shem and Taam

Shach (p19) (102,3)- machlokes Ramah (shemah) and Shach (taamah until 60)- if you
already have 60. He says we go shemah here only where we do have 60, but up to 60 we
follow taam and the machlokes b/t Abaye and Rava is after 60.

Rav- chl/ beriah is a davar chashuv which deals with hukar ha’issur and DSLM which is
not machria l’kullah. By SS there is no laidas hasafek so don’t need hachriah and
therefore it is mutar before we even enter into the DSLM discussion.
DSLM- you can’t be machriah l’chumrah- is a SS a laidas ha’safek. A) doesn’t make it as
if there is a laidas hasafek or B) there is no laidas hasafek at all and DSLM would be
mutar (for RT and the Mordechai)

Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirim (2)
Shiur 21/ Dec 12- (M) P21 YD 102

Nedarim (57b-58a) talks about things that are DSLM: tevel (where you can give terumah
even verbally) or maser sheni (to podeh the maser “b’chol makom shehu), chadash
(mutar on the 2nd day of pesach) or hekdesh.
NON DSLM- k’lei hakerem and urlah.

Limitations of DSLM
Rashba (Toras HaBais)- has yesodos about DSLM:
Beitzah of safek trefah (during the week) fell into a taaroves. The question is whether
“later” we will be able to tell if the animal was a trefah (ie if it gives birth again or if it
lives 12 months.) He says that the safek trefah is NOT a DSLM and is batel.
a) Vaday yavoh- He says that this is NOT a DSLM b/c it is not a vaday going to be
mutar at any point. This egg may become assur b/c the animal is a trefah.
b) B’yado- if it is in a person’s hands to do, that is considered a DSLM, but if not then
it’s not. Tirchah- is not b’yado.

Chadash- is not coming tomorrow, and it may come in a few months, this is also a
DSLM even if it is 10 months before b/c it is “vaday yavoh,” but it might be a hefsed
and therefore may be batel.

Mordechai- c) Miskalkel- if the food will be ruined or will have spoiled, then it is mutar
today. This doesn’t mean a little less, but specifically that it is ruined. This is b/c DSLM
is a derabanan.
(RE: B”HaShulchan said, the chachamim wanted to say that the whole category was
assur, but we won’t go that far b/c of mammon Yisrael- and by YLM we don’t have that
problem, unless there is a hefsed.)

Rabbenu Yonah: Issur V’heter (p4)- you didn’t know the halacha of DSLM and you
took the egg and cooked it, if there is 60 against the egg, can you eat the rest of the
Q) Is the taam also a DSLM even though there is bitul?
A) The taam of beriah is batel in 60, and the taam of DSLM is also batel as well.

Mordechai (Shabbas) (p12)- famous case: mashkin shezavu (oozed juice on Shabbas).
The juice is muktzeh. If the fruit already oozed out on Friday and on Shabbas it will
continue to ooze out more. The muktzeh is a DSLM so can I drink the juice on Shabbas if
a lot fell b/f Shabbas?
--If the item never existed as an independent unit, but came into this world into the
taaroves, the chachamim weren’t m’taken on such an object.

Heter B’Ofen Acher

Takanah of the Geonim- the point of melichah is to get out the blood. They said that
melichah must take place w/in 72 hours of the shechitah and the blood will become
embedded in the meat and won’t be able to be taken out.

Imported meat is frozen b/f salted- this is a question of whether freezing is a valid heter
b/f salting. (Some poskim say freezing stops the 72 hour process.)

Terumas HaDeshen- if you plan to do tzli then you don’t need to salt the meat:
Q) If you held meat for 3 days w/o salting? If this piece of meat fell into a taaroves is this
like a tref piece of meat that fell in and would be tref, or is this a DSLM (b/c the meat can
be fixed through tzli)?
Perhaps we should say that you have to do tzli?
-- DSLM means “the removability of the issur that it has, not that it can become
heter in another manner (heter b’ofen acher).” This is not mutar b/c bishul remains
assur even if it can be salted. Tzli will not take it out of that issur of bishul, it just changes
the situation.

R’ Alfas says that the animal was never assur (b/c it could’ve been roasted.
The TH”D feels the Raviah is the ikkar [see further].

Rif (Pesachim)- seems to argue with this yesod.

Pesachim (77a) (p7)- roasting 2 pieces in an oven: one was fatty and one was not. Do we
think that the particles of the tref went to the other food (smell). Rav says it is assur. Levi
says that “reichah is lav milsah” and it is mutar.

Rif uses a different scenario: he deals with a case of a piece of bread with meat (not tref
and kosher meat) that are cooked in the same oven.
He says that even though reichah lav milsah (Levi), still he can’t eat the bread with
kutach (dairy) b/c the bread is a DSLM that could be eaten w/o dairy and not rely on a
bitul of particles. This is a YLM even b’ofen acher according to the Rif. DSLM doesn’t
only mean that the direct issur is going to become mutar, but even that the food will
become mutar. As long as you find a permissible way to eat it, it is a DSLM.
Rabbi Simon- said it is “like” a DSLM, but the Ran really thinks it is a DSLM (and he
says his pshat to explain this Rif.)

Raviah- is against the Rif and says that “heter b’ofen acher” is NOT DSLM.

S”A (p22)- [Rav Lifshitz says that the S”A should be the last stop on the train]:
102,2- Rashba.
102,4- kilkul- Mordechai.
Ramah- brings down the I”V.

Ramah- -if the issur isn’t machmas atzmoh then it is batel, therefore the TH”D’s case is
batel b/c it is NOT “issur machmas atzmoh.” Since the whole issur is from the dam in the
meat, then it isn’t a machmas atzmoh. This is a kosher piece of meat with a heter.
Shach- attacks this Ramah and says that the reason why the meat was batel in the tzli case
was b/c it is NOT A DSLM at all b/c it’s “heter b’makom acher” (like the TH”D) and
NOT b/c a DSLM has to be assur machmas atzmoh. A DSLM should be assur even by a
belias issur as long as there is a heter at some point.

Chametz B’Pesach
Chametz isn’t batel even mbsm. People try to buy milk before pesach so there is no “ze
v’ze gorem” of the chamtz eaten before pesach that causes the milk that was produced.

I) Rambam (p13)- Why is chametz assur b’mashehu?

It is a DSLM therefore it is assur. This is a chiddush b/c DSLM usually is not batel by
mbm, but for chametz the chachamim were gozer for mbsm from “kol machmetzes lo

II) Mordechai (Pesachim) (p3)- if the issur will return some time in the future, it is
not a DSLM, even if it will become mutar for a period of time (ie chametz- which will
become assur next year on Pesach.)
The reason why chametz isn’t batel is b/c of the chumrah b’chametz as an issur kares,
therefore we are machmir by chametz (“baal yeraeh” etc.).

NM) Rosh (Pesachim)- chametz on erev pesach after 6 hours (on the 14th of Nissan).
What happens if the chametz falls into a taaroves at this juncture? Is it like Pesach (and is
an issur mashehu b/c it is DSLM) and the chamtz isn’t batel, or is it considered like
before Pesach and batel b’60 (b/c there is not yet an issur kares)?
The Rosh says it is batel (even though eating the chametz would be a chiuv malkos) b/c
the issur was batel b/f Pesach and this taaroves would be mutar on Pesach.
The Rosh seems to say that it is batel b/c “there is no issur kares” on the chametz yet.
[This seems like the Mordechai b/c the chumrah of chametz didn’t yet apply therefore it
should be batel, but the chametz is still assur and a DSLM.]
-- Many only make erev pesach matzos when it is being cooked (and make a bracha and
say halel). If there is chametz then there will be a shaila b/c erev pesach is also a DSLM.

Ran (p18)- How is waiting for after Pesach a matir b/c there is an issur of “chametz
sheavar aluv ha’pesach” even after Pesach? He says that “chametz she’avar aluv” is
mutar in a taaroves and therefore it would still be a DSLM.
(Mordechai-shanah habaah becomes issur again so it can’t be a DSLM.)

Ramah (p27)- quotes the Mordechai (not a DSLM) and there are cholkim (Rambam).
The Ramah adds that the food item must be mutar to the person who we are saying it is
not batel for (which is a NM by a person who was b’meizid and cooked food on
Shabbas.) [It is not a DSLM.--?]

The gemara says that chadash is a DSLM by Nedarim b/c it will be mutar on the 2nd day
of Yom Tov. By DSLM we don’t say safek derabanan l’kullah and it should not be batel.

Menachos (68b-69a)- the 1st day of pesach is 15 and 2nd is 16 and it could be that 16 is
the first day. When can you eat the chadash- can you eat it after 15 or 16 (safek yom).
The chachamim were eating end of 16 early 17, which is the day before the omer on the
17th (b’safek). They said that chadash in Chutz LaAretz is derabanan and therefore they
don’t need to wait and therefore they didn’t wait to the end of the 17th.

Q) Chadash is a DSLM and why do they say safek l’kullah? Shouldn’t they have waited
the extra day?

Maharam (p20) Beitzah (in Chidushe Anshe Shem on the Mordechai):

1) This is a different type of safek. We know that 15 is the 1st day, it is not a real safek
anymore. We are really using minhag avosenu b’yadenu. We are experts in the months
2) He says that the issur is going to come back next year so it’s not a DSLM.

Pri Chadash (p21)- says that by chadash there is no new issur the next year, the next
year NEW PRODUCE has the issur, not the old produce!! So he doesn’t understand the
Mordechai’s 2nd answer.

Tiltul DSLM
Tzlach (written by Nodeh B’Yehudah) (p29)- Beitzah on yom tov: if something is
muktzah there are 2 issurim: 1) tiltul and 2) achilah.
Once there is a taaroves, can I move the eggs or am I worried about the DSLM?
Tzlach says that it’s mutar b/c DSLM applies only when you only do something ONCE
and when you do that action, do it b’heter and not b’issur. DSLM doesn’t mean that we
can prevent you to move something that you would’ve moved 5 times, and we say that
you only move it 4 times.

Mishna Bekurim (Rav Dimmerman quotes)- maser sheni fell into a taaroves in
Yerushalaim, can you eat it out of Yerushalaim where it is assur b’mashehu.
Bartenura- says that it is a DSLM b/c you could’ve eaten it in Yerushalaim. He splits b/t
a case of maser sheni that fell into the taaroves IN YERUSHALAIM where it is a DSLM
and can’t be eaten outside. But, if it fell into the taaroves outside of Yerushalaim then
there is an expense to force the person to go to Yer. to eat the food, and by this type of
case (of expense) the chachamim weren’t m’taken.
This is like the svara of the Rashba by kelim which would require hagalah, and it isn’t a
DSLM. A tircha isn’t considered a DSLM.

Nosen Taam Lifgam (1)
Shiur 22/ Dec 14- (W) P22 YD 103

NTL is an extension of TKI, except that NTL is discussing a case where the taam is
Why isn’t a taam pagum considered a regular taam and an issur deoritta?

1) Devarim (14,20) (p1-2)- “lo tochlu kol neveilah, l’ger”

2) A”Z (67b) (p3-4)- “Lo tochal:” whatever is rauyah l’ger is called a neveilah and
whatever is not rauyah l’ger is not called a nevilah. Anything that is nifsal from human
consumption is not included in the posuk.

B’ain- requires pagum l’gamri

Taam- needs 24 hours

If it is w/in 24 hours the taam goes into the food and after 24 hours the taam is pagum.
This is based upon R’ Shimon and the pasuk of “lo tochlu.” (See gemara A”Z for source
of why this means 24 hours).

Ran (A”Z) (p5):

Q) When you have a kederah that is not a ben yomo (after 24 hours) and now you are
going to cook food in it- the taam didn’t reach aino rauyah l’achilah or else you wouldn’t
want to eat the food anymore. If the taam was pagum then it would be nifsal l’achilas
adam and we see that this isn’t the case?
Part 1) We see that there are two different standards- if the machal is bein the
requirement is nifsal m’achilas adam, and by a kli we consider it pagum at 24 hours
which isn’t the same level as the bein?
Part 2) If the food is bein, the eater is going to get hana’ah if the issur isn’t putrid,
therefore the food must get to the level of putrid to be mutar. By taam, even if it isn’t
nifsal l’achilas adam, the food doesn’t need to meet the standard of nifsal b/c in a
taaroves the taam is not adding anything positive and this is what is needed to consider
the taam to be pagum. This is why there is a different standard b/t the two types.
Therefore, the Ran says, if the davar ha’assur helps to expand the volume of the davar
ha’matur and the value of the expansion is greater than the loss, then there is a net gain
against the bad taam and the food is NOT considered NTL, rather it is a shevach.
[A bein can’t be neutral, it is either positive or negative.]

Rashba (Bais HaKatzer) (p6-7)- to make NTL into a heter you need:
Taam Track: 1) the heter food must be the rov and then 2) it is only assur by a taam.
The only issur of the taam is if the issur has a positive taam and NTL is not considered
Bein Track: if the 1) issur is rov then 2) the taam must be putrid to make the taaroves
mutar b/c the issur is then like bein and a mere taam pagum isn’t sufficient.

Perhaps the Ran doesn’t require rov heter and even rov issur wouldn’t require pagum
l’gamre. If the bein is alone then you need pagum l’gamri.

The way people explain this machlokes: that there are two ways to explain the partial
pgam by taam issur:
1) rayuah l’ger (perhaps Ran doesn’t need rov and only a taaroves w/ taam) (Ran) or
2) need rov (heter) (Rashba).

Pri Migadim (Mishpetzos Zahav [103, end of 1])- says that the Ran and Rashba are
R’ Simon- Even though many (Pr”M) say there is a machlokes b/t the Ran and the
Rashba, R’ Simon is not convinced that they are arguing. He thinks that all agree that
you need rov heter b/f the taam pagum is enough (even the Ran).

Chametz on Pesach (NM b/t Ran and Rashba [acc. to the ‘reid’ machlokes])
R’ Ovadiah Yosef- quotes a story of a woman crying for using chametz kelim on Pesach
to make food for Pesach. He told her not to worry b/c she was a Sephardi woman and
therefore the food would be kosher.

NTL is mutar to eat (like a pot after 24 hours) and a blieah is pagum.

What about chametz on pesach?

Mechaber- says that taam pagum is mutar even on pesach.
Ramah- says that we are machmir and we say that NTL is assur on Pesach b/c chametz
is an issur mashehu on pesach.
(All agree that b/f Pesach if the taaroves occurred then it is batel and mutar on Pesach.)

Rashba says that NTL on Pesach is assur (like the Ramah).

Pri Migadim (cited earlier)- says that this Rashba is l’shitaso. The Rashba says you need
bitul b’rov for NTL to be effective w/o the food being putrid. Chametz is an issur
mashehu and therefore there can’t be a heter of rov so there can’t be a heter of rov on
Pesach. There is no such thing ON PESACH of bitul b’rov.
The Ran doesn’t require bitul b’rov and hence this can be the NM b/t the 2.

S”A (103)- quotes the Rashba and then quotes the Ran’s chiddush.

NTL by issur mashehu

Tosefos (A”Z 66a) (p11)- if you have an issur mashehu, is it shayach to say that you
can’t say NTL OR/ can it have been masriach and NTL still applies and the food’s mutar?
I) Tosefos says that issur mashehu means there is no NTL.
I) Sefer Yeraim (p16)- says that if it is an issur kol shehu then NTL won’t be mutar.
II) Terumas HaDeshen- says that “ha’machmir tuvo aluv bracha” but it may be that it
can be mutar by NTL.
Nekudas HaMachlokes: Do we view taam pagum as better than an issur mashehu or not?

Kederah and Aino Ben Yomo: how long?
There are 2 opinions in the poskim about kedeirah and what the phrase “aino ben yomo
(ABY)” means.

I) Hagahos Ashri (p12)- says that it ABY means 24 hours “ma’aes l’aes” from the last
time it has time in it.
II) Rashi A”Z (67b) (p3)- says that the shiur is “linas lailah”- one nighttime.

-- S”A (103,5) (p22)- brings down the 24 hour shittah (but we do use the linas lailah
shittah for some dinim.)

A”Z (65b-66a) quotes p’sukim from parshat Mattos talking about hechser keilim. The
gemara asks about why we need a parsha of hechser keilim parsha for, if everything is
mutar in 24 hours m’deoritta?
A) The chachamim made a gezerah of “bas yomo uto aino bas yomo.”
If you aren’t machshir keilim you are o’ver on the gezerah d’rabanan, but it would seem
that the food would still be fine b/c the taam was really pagum after 24 hours.

Rashba- disagrees and says that a kli used after 24 hours w/o hechsher creates a
problem to eat the food.

Rosh- asks why “linas ha’lailah” was a possible shiur?

A) People didn’t cook at night, instead they went to sleep. Since everyone went to sleep,
the pots weren’t used. The disuse causes the pot to become stale, and the use of the pot
will keep the pot fresh. R”Taam says that you need the night b/c of disuse.
When is the “night,” at the beginning of the night or the end?
The Rosh and Rashi aren’t sure about it. Perhaps it is like kodshim and you have to wait
the whole night.

The Rosh therefore has an issue with Rashi’s shittah of “linas ha’lailah.”
Q) We know that if you cook kodshim- when the morning comes then the food is nosar
and the taam in the kelim is also noser (and the kelim would have to be broken). If all that
you need is sof ha’lailah to make the taam pagum, then you’d never have to break a kli
b/c it would become noser and pagum at the same time?
A1) Rosh feels that even if you leave the kelim of kodshim until pagum, in the mikdash
they wouldn’t rely on it.
A2) Perhaps if you cook with the kli cheres at night but this is a dochak.
So this is why he is not happy with Rashi.

The Rosh says that if you use the kli that isn’t ben yomo, the kli is assur and the food is
Why is the food permissible? This is the heter of “techilas beliaso lifgam.” Here the
taam was good in the kli and then it became pagum so that is why we are machmir, but
when the taam went into the food, it started as pgam so we don’t say “aino yomo uto ben
This is why the Rosh says the food is mutar: b/c the food started off with taam pagum.

Nosen Taam Lifgam (2)
Shiur 23/ Dec 19- (M) P23 YD 103

If you use a kederah w/in 24 hours it will tref up the food, but after 24 hours all the food
is mutar and the Torah’s parsha of hagalah was for the first 24 hours. The chachamim
were m’taken that even after 24 hours there is a chiuv to do hagalah uto before 24 hours.

Techilaso Beliaso Lifgam

Rashba (p3)- [from Rabenu Yitzchak] there are 2 types of hagalah:

1) a fork is put in a pot of hot water and then the taam of the hot fork goes into the water
2) if the pot itself is tref you boil water in the pot itself and the taam comes out.
Any hagalah done w/in 24 hours is being done on a taam lishvach.

Q) The taam may come out, but then it goes right back in?
A) The fork would take back what it regurgitates.
Q) The kli isn’t a navi to know what it regurgitated and what it didn’t. The pot is going to
take in what it let out.
A) There are 2 possibilities:
1) that there must be 60 times in the water compared to the small utensil, but if there were
big pots then you won’t have 60 times inside the pot as compared to the pot walls and
therefore the klei Midian didn’t use big kelim.

2) Perhaps to use a big kli you have to leave it for 24 hours.

So what did you accomplish—the taam is already pagum and then you can put it in a less
than 60 times mixture.
Q) But then what did you accomplish, before the hagalah there was a taam pagum in the
kli and after the hagalah the taam was also pagum?
A) {Like the Rosh} The first time that the taam went into the kli was l’shvach (techilas
beliaso l’shvach) and after the hagalah the techilas beliaso will be lifgam. This was the
reason for the derabanan. When it is techilas beliaso lifgam there is no chiuv “even”
derabanan to do hagalah.

Rosh [Pesachim pg250 (2,7)] (p12)- is dealing with the same question as the Rashba,
how do you kasher something if it becomes re-absorbed if something is not b”y.

If it is not b”y then the kli can be kashered w/o 60 times water b/c if the taam is pagum
then the taam coming back into the pot is NAT bar NAT (nosen taam bar nosen taam).

If you want to be machshir a kli in a tref kli after 24 hours

Q) If we say that you can’t use an aino ben yomo to cook, why can we use it to do
A) The only reason that cooking is assur is “uto cooking in it ben yomo” which is an issur
deoritta. By hechsher kelim, even if I use the tref kli after 24 hours, the maximum issur
that can come out of the pot is then a NAT bar NAT. By bishul, the fear is a worse case
scenario of making food tref.

You want to use a tref dishwasher:
1) if it is stainless steel- do a heat cycle.
2) porcelin is a problem to kasher

Igros Moshe (pg 18-19) quotes R’ Dovid Feinstein- said from this Rashba that just as
the hagalah kli doesn’t need hechsher first, so too the dishwasher. Therefore, after 24
hours the dishwasher should be mutar w/o anything. The Rosh was only concerned about
the pot (that there would be cooking in it) and not the hechsher kli. If you want to put in
hot water to clean it, it’s fine.
R’ Moshe wasn’t ready to accept this kli b/c you are using it for your own tzoruch and
this is enough to imply that the gezerah would also apply by this case and it would be
[I don’t understand the difference of tzoruch by a dishwasher and that of a hagalah pot,
which is mutar?]
R’ Shachter- is fond of quoting R’ Dovid.
The psak in this area depends on the situation and the people involved.

R’ Abade- said that he doesn’t even need to wait 24 hours based on the Rashba b/c
there is soap in the dishwasher and there is techilas beliaso lifgam.
The problem is: 1) is all soap considered pagum (caustic) and 2) whether when the first
dishwasher cycle- the water is released before the soap is released and then there is a
beliah before the soap is used.
[R’ Konegsberg said that perhaps R’ Abade would say that it is all one process.]
R’ Shachter says the soap must be caustic soap to be considered pagum.

Magen Ba’ade (Sephardic Teshuva) (p23)- he held that all the taam is all pagum in the
dishwasher and therefore milk and meat kelim can be put together in the dishwasher.
This is not the Ashkenazic minhag.

Does the gezerah ben yomo ever expire?

Chacham Tzvi (p30)- there is a gezerah aino yomo uto ben yomo, but does that
gezerah ever end? Do we ever say that the taam is as if it isn’t there and it is mutar to
Q) There was a kli that had chametz cooked in it two years earlier and the family
accidentally used the pot on Pesach?
1) This is a machlokes Mechaber/Remah (see earlier shir) and b/c the pot was used ON
PESACH the bitul would not take place according to the Remah, therefore the Ashkenaz
poskim would say that the food is assur.
2) The Chacham Tzvi said that it doesn’t make sense that the taam will be assur
m’derabanan forever. There must be a limit to this gezerah. He says that the Remah
would agree that 12 months should be the cut-off point.
The gezerah is only for a 12 month period and then the taam is like aphar d’almah.

C”Tz based his psak on a gemara in A”Z (34a) (p29)- where tref wine was left in barrels.
The barrels can be used 12 months after the taam/wine goes away. [Some say this din is
only about wine, but the Chacham Tzvi extends this din to other cases.]

R’ Moshe says that you should 1) wait a year (b/c of hefsed) and then 2) be mosif
hagalah 3 times based upon the Yerushalmi Terumos.
Yerushalmi Terumos- says that hagalah 3 times can matir even a kli cheres.

Chacham Tzvi (p31) then says:

Q) Who says that we make a gezerah only up to 12 months, perhaps there is a gezerah
after 12 months for fear of using it b/f 12 months?
A) Yayin nesech: even the ben yomo was assur even b’dieved. For 12 months it is
assur to use the barrels of yayin nesech at all. If after 12 months we say it is mutar
l’chatchilah, there is a clear difference b/t the heter period and the issur period.
-- Tref kli after 24 hours: after 24 hours it is mutar b’dieved and this kullah would say
that after a year it would be l’chatchilah. The C”Tz says that in this case he will NOT
make a gezerah b/c there is not a clear differentiation b/t the issur period and the
heter period.
-- Chametz B’Pesach according to the Remah: would be mutar b/c there is a strong
distinction b/t the issur period (even b’dieved it is assur) and then making it mutar
l’chatchilah would undermine the gezerah.
BUT, according to the Mechaber where the pot is mutar b’dieved until 12 months and
then it is mutar l’chatchilah, the Chacham Tzvi would say the gezerah would still apply.

What if you are getting something from a goy?

If the goy has kosher food, but he has tref kelim that haven’t been used for 24 hours. You
can’t tell a goy to cook for you, but if he did cook, can you eat that food?

Toras Chatas (p5)- Remah quotes the Shaare Durah says that if the goy cooked kosher
in a kli that was aino ben yomo, you can eat the food l’chatchilah b/c the goy doesn’t
have a gezerah.
Rashba says that telling a goy to cook for you is like you cooked in that pot.

Tosefos A”Z (p11)- the famous case of the mardah (spatullah) used for non-kosher food.
Q) If the mardah is now clean and hasn’t been used for 24 hours, can the goy use it to
remove kosher food from the oven for the Jew?
A) The goy is not going to make two mardah’s for the Jew, therefore it is mutar to allow
the goy to get the bread with this mardah (the Jew can’t use it).
Mechaber quotes this Tosefos
[Rashba would say where the goy was being asked to get the bread out, it is assur to eat.]

Igros Moshe (p25)- R’ Moshe has a question about a margarine factory. Every Friday
they would clean the machinery by using boiling water through the machinery. They
would then open on Monday morning. There is no mashgiach who can stay in the plant
on Friday afternoon to see the hagalah on Friday and then the kosher batch is put on early
Monday morning. Can the mashgiach assume that a proper hagalah was done.

1) If the law is (the American law) that there must be a hagalah then we can assume that
there was a proper hagalah.
2) Really no hagalah is needed, only that it is clean. The issur is on the bishul and the
akum doesn’t have an issur of using kelim that aren’t b’nei yoman. This is a goy’s factory
so hagalah isn’t needed.

Chamude Daniel/ Rashba (p8)- to cook with a kli that isn’t ben yomo, we were taught
that the food is always mutar. The Rashba says that using the food from the pot if done
b’meizid (whether a Jew or a Goy) is assur. It is a violation of AMIL and therefore
anyone who tells a Goy to cook in an aino ben yomo, the food is assur. You can NOT tell
a goy to take bread with his kelim
R’ Moshe says that we don’t hold like that Rashba [at the end of the margarine

Chiddush of the Minchas Yaakov: the gezerah never applied to a kli cheres
Minchas Yaakov- perhaps aino ben yomo uto ben yomo doesn’t apply to a kli cheres b/c
perhaps the gezerah was only on a metal kli. The chachamim didn’t want people to throw
out dishes. The gezerah was to force people to do hagalah.
Many Achronim are against the Minchas Yaakov.

Some hechsherim will do hagalah with soap that is NTL so they can undermine the chiuv
to wait 24 hours.

Nosen Taam Lifgam (3)
Shiur 24/ Dec 21- (W) P24 YD 103

Devarim (14,21) (p1-2): “lo tochlu kol neveilah, l’ger” [you can get hanaah from
A”Z (67b) (p3-4) “kol harauya l’ger”- only neveilah that is rauy l’ger is assur, but if it
isn’t then pukah issurah (the issur of neveilah doesn’t apply on the issur.)

Pesachim (24b-25a) (p5)- in order to get malkos for ma’achalos asuros you must eat it in
the normal way. If people would not eat the issur raw or burning hot, you won’t get
malkos for this achilah. The chiuv malkos is based upon eating it in the “derech” that it is
normally eaten.

There are 2 exceptions to this rule: a) k’lei hakerem and b) basar b’chalav.
In these 2 cases, the Torah never expresses the issur in a language of “achilah” but only
in other language (eg. bishul). B/c of this, even if the issur isn’t eaten in the “derech” of
achilah, you will still get malkos.

Q) Are these 2 sugyos related?

This is a very fundamental machlokes of the Kresi and Chavas Daas:
N”M 1) Is B”B only an exception in derech achilah (Pesachim) or is it also an exception
to “nifsal ma’achilas adam” as well?
N”M 2) Are the processes reversible? Is nifsal irreversible and “shelo k’derech”

I) Chavas Daas (p9)- The simple pshat is that these 2 sugyos have nothing to do with
each other b/c their dinim come from 2 different pesukim. In Pesachim the meat is fine,
but not rauyah to eat and in A”Z it is about nifsal meat (a rotten piece of meat). Even
though b”b is eaten raw you don’t get malkos, if it is nifsal then it isn’t called neveilah.
One is “shelo k’derech” and one is “nifsal.” If b”b is nifsal then it is mutar.
[Toras Chaim- if you swallow something w/o chewing is it “shelo k’derech achilaso?”]

II) Kresi/Plesi- says based upon the Rambam that nifsal is shelo k’derech. The Plesi
connects the sugyos and says that the chumrah on b’b and k’h that is stated in Pesachim
about “shelo k’derech” is also extended to nifsal (and b’b doesn’t have the heter of aino
rauyah l’ger.)

Rambam (p6)- you must eat the issur “derech hana’ah” except for B”B and K”H where
hana’ah isn’t written.
He then says that something that is “nisrach” by b”b and k”h you will be chayev for it b/c
he includes nisrach in his list of “shelo k’derech.” B’b and k’h are therefore also
exceptions to the derech achilah rule.

How can the C”D explain the Rambam?

Bechoros (23b)- brings a machlokes at interpreting the pasuk of “lo tochlu kol neveilah,
l’ger:” one maan de’amar says that it comes for aino rauyah and the other says it is to
exclude saruach m’ikkarah. The Rambam must be using the pasuk for saruach m’ikkarah.

Ma’adane Asher-
Q) Does the Plesi mean to say if you have a disgusting b’b you get malkos b/c it is bain
or does it even apply to taam? If you have a pot of b’b after 24 hours is there is no heter?
A) Even the Plesi wouldn’t apply his issur by “taam b’almah.” By taam it is only by taam
m’shubach and only by bein it needs nisrach.

Imrei Baruch- Q) asks on the Rambam who says there is a din of nt”l (by devash) which
was not a case of saruach m’ikkarah?
Maadane Asher- A) the question is whether the taam was pogem the devash or not.
If the whole thing is taam then all will agree that the issur of b’b wouldn’t apply, only by
a bain, even by nisrach, would it apply.

Chavas Daas- also says that something that is “shelo k’derech” is reversible, while
“nifsal” is not reversible b/c it is “pukah issurah” (the issur was removed). “Shelo
k’derech” is a problem in the gavrah (ie: the meat is raw, so now it is not derech, but it
can be cooked.) C”D says that shelo k’derech is different from nifsal. Gelatin is pukah
-- This is crucial for the gelatin question which was nifsal and is then reconstituted.
The C”D would say that this is not issur anymore.

Based upon this C”D, according to the Rambam/Kresi who say that the gemaras in A”Z
and Pesachim are really one joint gemara, they will say that: just like in the gemara of
Pesachim, food eaten in an aino reuyah fashion can surely be fixed (eg raw food cooked),
they will also say in A”Z that a piece of meat that was nisrach, if it was reconstituted, will
regain its issur!!
Rambam- if you say like the Rambam that the category of aino rauyah l’ger includes
nisrach then there is a problem of gelatin.

R’ Ahron Kotler- in his teshuva to assur gelatin uses the Kresi/Rambam.

- If the psak was using shitas Rambam, then gelatin would be issur gamur. The C”D can’t
read his pshat in the Rambam and therefore would have to hold like other Rishonim.
R’ Chaim Ozer- was the matir

R’ Simon- felt that the C”D was correct for many years and now he feels that this is not
what the Rambam said, therefore he is not so clear that the gelatin is mutar according to
the Rambam.

Is there an issur derabanan by nifsal?

Q) If something is nifsal me’achilah, is it assur to use m’derabanan (whether we are

assuming like the Plesi [R’Ahron] or the C”D) b/c of achshevei?

This is an important issue for gelatin and is also relevant for questions regarding
medicine, whether the medicine is an o’chel and whether achshevei applies?
Is achshevei agreed upon to all opinions?

Pesachim (21b)- if you char bread b/f Pesach and it is now nifsal, it loses its shem
chametz on pesach and it is mutar b’hana’ah.
Rosh (p15)- Q) why doesn’t the gemara say it is mutar for achilah? Why does it say
“mutar b’hanaah?”
A) The Rosh says that some say it is also mutar for achilah, but this is not mistaber. He
says “if you decide to eat it then it is assur” (it seems m’derabanan and some may say it
is deoritta.) The Rosh doesn’t use the term achshevei.

Baal HaMaor- There are many Rishonim say that this is not true- b/c charred bread is
not usually eaten, and the bread might also be mutar l’achilah, but it isn’t derech to eat it.
That is why the gemara uses the lashon of hana’ah, in a lav davkah form.
Ran- also says that it is mutar for achilah.
-- These shitos wouldn’t hold of achshevei.
Do we hold like the Rosh and not the Ran?

Terumos HaDeshen SHUT- using ink (made from barley) on Pesach- can you use a pen
from this aino rauyah l’achilah on Pesach? He quotes the Rosh and uses the lashon of
achshevei discussing the Rosh. [Later the Taz uses this lashon.] He says that this is only
for derech achilah, but if not, then the din of achshevei doesn’t apply.

S”A (p19) (O”C 442,10)- quotes the T”H and says that you are allowed to write with
such a pen. It is unclear whether he is using the shitas Rosh or even the Baal HaMaor.
Taz- uses the lashon of achshevei.
M”A (p19)- explains the T”H, that the ink isn’t being eaten with machshavah to eat.

You are not eating it for achilah.
Shagas Aryeh (p21)- [machmir] says that is it assur and it is achshevei by medicine
(probably m’derabanan).
R’ Moshe- says that achshevei isn’t shayach for medicine, only food items. Food is being
taken for achilah, but medicine is not and therefore it doesn’t matter about tarfus or other.
R’ Belski- even though medicine is mutar, R’ Moshe said that vitamins would not be
mutar b/c you are trying to supplement your food and not like medicine to cure your
problems. This is like food and you should try to get those that are kosher.

Shitas Rambam
Achronim- say that achshevei might be the shitas Rambam (p25) and perhaps shelo
k’derech would be mutar, but it would still be assur b/c of achshevei.
Rambam- if you eat neveilah or trefah (the bones) even though they aren’t rauy l’achilah
it’s assur and R’ Ahron says that this is b/c of achshevei.

By atzamos- the Rambam doesn’t say it is a davar assur and we don’t need bitul, but he
only says that they are assur themselves. The Rambam’s shitah has nothing to do with the
issue of mitztaref, but only the issur of eating them, which would be from achshevei.
[See shiur on Atzamos: O”Zaruah- says that the bones are neutral.]

Chewable medicines- not a problem like C”D, but perhaps problem to Kresi.

Pri Chadash(p28)- paskins that there is no din of achshevei like the Ran and B”H.
He says that the reason why issurei nifsal are assur is “baal teshaktzu” (medicine
wouldn’t be teshaktzu and therefore would be a problem and he says that there is no din
achshevei and we don’t hold like the Rosh).

Chazon Ish (p29)- quotes the Pri Chadash: 5 things

Issurei achilah that are nifsal: [he could’ve quoted the machlokes Rosh and B”H,
instead he] quotes the Pri Chadash and says that they is mutar.

-- He says that even those who want to say achshevei is assur is only by chametz like the
T”H (who HOLDS of achshevei) b/c he says that we can say achshevei by chametz and
not by ma’achalos assuros (and the chametz now becomes chametz derabanan).

Malbim- syas that the animal that Avraham “made,” and wasn’t normally made.

Bach- wants to understand how achshevei works. Why should there be a din of achshevei
once it is nifsal? He says that there has to be a limit of achshevei and that when it hits
afar b’almah then it isn’t achshevei. Perhaps if it is edible in its state, it can have
achshevei, but something totally putrid that even in a taaroves wouldn’t be edible,
doesn’t have the din of achshevei. He says there is no din derabanan on this either.
-- Bach says that certain things that we don’t even say achshevei and other things perhaps
you can discuss.

R’ Abade thinks that this Bach is against the T”H (ink teshuva). The Bach wouldn’t need
the svara of the T”H to say the ink is mutar.

Nosen Taam Lifgam (4)
Shiur 25/ Dec 26- (M) P25 YD 103

A”Z (67a)- what if the food is “shvach and then pagum” or “pagum and then shvach.”
The gemara quotes a case of “shevach and then pagum” and says it is assur.
S”A (p2)- says it is assur by either of these cases.

When does it become assur? Is it assur immediately or only later on?

Shach- says the taaroves is only assur once it is hishbeach, but b/f that it is mutar! But, if
it is shvach and then pagum it is always assur at the end.
Pri Chadash- says that the taaroves is even assur during the pagum period.

Rav Soloveichik- we understand the P”C b/c the pgam is treated the same way the whole
time, but what is the svara of the Shach?
Chiddush: “Ein bitul ela me’techilas ha’taaroves”- when the taaroves is made, the
bitul has to set in immediately, or it won’t set in. If it is mashbeach first, then it’ll always
be assur. But, if it starts pagum then the taaroves is mutar and then it can become assur.
Proof 1: Shach
Proof 2: Mechaber- “efshar l’sochto assur” meat has milk in it and cooked in corn 70
times, but what about the piece of meat? “Efshar l’sochto” teaches that the piece of meat
remains issur. The Rav learns from here, “ein bitul” b/c the bitul must come me’techilah.
Questions against this yesod:
Q1) “AMIL” seems against this yesod b/c there can be bitul can be after the taaroves is
already formed, b’de’eved.
A) The Rav says that “tosefes heter” becomes like the new taaroves.
Q2) Beriah is not batel- but if it breaks up even afterward then it is batel.
A) The Rav says that m’derabanan we say as if it’s not in the taaroves and not b’ein.

R’ Simon would rather answer up the other two proofs than say the Rav’s chiddush:
Q) How do you answer the Shach and efshar l’sochto?
1) Efshar l’sochto can be b/c you can never be sure that it was fully removed.
2) The Shach can be explained by the Pri Megadim (p4): that the Shach is probably a din
derabanan, b/c you don’t want to be matir things that are mushbach m’techilaso.

Chaserah Melech/ Yeserah Melech

A”Z (67a)- if you have something that is pagum and the only reason it is pagum is
because of a davar mutar (ie salt) to make the taaroves pagum, but if the salt wasn’t there
then it wouldn’t have been pagum. The salt is a davar mutar.
S”A (103,3)- brings down the cases and is makil (like the 2nd deah of R”L) and says that
even the non perfect taaroves (pagum) is mutar.

Boiling hot water in a pot that was last used for tref and is waiting 24 hours?
A pot used for issur at 9AM and then water at 11AM, does the 24 hour period begin from
9 or 11 b/c at 11 the taam of the meat will come into the water and go back into the pot,
perhaps we should start the clock again.

Sefer HaTerumah (p11)- the water is CNN and the pot is reinfused with the issur (w/o
60). The water now is like a piece of neveilah and you must restart the 24 hours.
However, CNN only applies when trefus was cooked in the pot and then water was
cooked in it, but if kosher meat was used at 9AM, at 12PM you used water in the pot and
then 10 AM the next day you used milk in the pot, did the water reinvigorate the issur?
No, we don’t say CNN by heter therefore the walls of the pot won’t be re-infused with
the heter. The meat taam ends at 9AM the next day.
The Sefer HaTerumah’s shittah assumes that CNN applies by sha’ar issurim (like R”T).
Smak- says that there are many makilim in this case and say that the pot is mutar. The
taaroves is mutar b/c the taam of the issur is not a ben yomo.
It is unclear whether this shitah is only according to those who say CNN only by BB or
even according to those opinions that hold of CNN by sha’ar issurim.

S”A (p15)- if a kederah had meat and milk cooked in it and then the same day water was
cooked in the pot, we start the 24 hour el”e period from the end of the water cooking.
-- We can imply from the S”A that if there was linas lailah b/t the BB and the water that
the starting time would be the time when the BB stopped cooking el”e.
Remah- adds: if a pot was used for meat at night and the next day at 8AM it was used for
milk (after linas lailah) and then for water at 9AM: at 8AM the pot becomes BB (and we
don’t hold like Rashi who says linas lailah creates pgam), BUT the Remah is makil and
says that the el”e goes from 8AM and that he will hold like the Smak and Rashi to say
that the kederah itself doesn’t have it’s el”e extended, even though the food cooked in the
pot is assur b/c of BB. The Remah says that linas lailah at any point of the process creates
an earlier el”e (es l’es=24 hour) period.

Shach (p17) quotes the B”Y and says that water can’t be CNN by having the beliah of
BB b/c CNN can only be formed in BB when forming the issur (putting the meat and
milk together). The Shach feels that the Sefer HaTerumah’s din might not be based upon
CNN at all.
B”Y- doesn’t hold of CNN by sha’ar issurim.
Gileon Maharsha- if the stuff came in fresh then it would be a problem and he feels that
the water does re-invigorate the pot. {Nat bar Nat wouldn’t apply b/c it’s issur and nat bar
nat d’issurah is always assur.}

Spicy Things
A”Z (39)- you can’t get a type of sharp plant (chilkis) from a goy, b/c it could’ve been
cut with a tref knife. Even though we assume b”y, when dealing with sharp foods, we
assume that the taam can be remade shevach even after 24 hours. The food can pull out
the taam and make a techias hamasim.

What about onions?

Tosefos opinion 1: says it is also onions
Tosefos opinion 2: it doesn’t include onions, only chilkis.
Mordechai- this applies to all spicy things that are similar to chilkis.

Ritvah (A”Z) quotes the Ra’ah- who denies this din that something spicy can re-
energize a pagum taam [like the C”Daas would say]. It is already pagum, so how can it
come back.
Ran says there are 2 tracks to aino ben yomo: 1) pgam gamre and 2) pgam purta. A pgam
purta, although it is pgam, it can have a “techias hamesim,” while a pgam l’gamre can’t.
Ra’ah- disagrees and says there are not 2 tracks to pgam and therefore when it is pagum
it is saruach and there is no “techiyas hamesim” and the taam is like afar.

Ra’ah says that the gemara A”Z might be talking about a case where the knife was dirty
with bein grease and the chilkis is giving taam to that grease l’shevach. Once the taam is
nifsal, the tref knife won’t effect anything.
Perhaps the Ra’ah is l’shitaso.

Teshuvas Rashba: case there was davar charif and not chilkis: the charifus won’t be able
to make the b”y shevach unless there is a lot of davar charif in the taaroves.
Teshuvas Rashba (p24)- perhaps it is only by chilkus.
S”A (p15) (103,6)- says that chilkus makes it charif.
Shach says that the spicyness has to be the majority in the pot.

Nosen Taam Lifgam (5)
Shiur 26/ Dec 28- (W) P26 YD 104

A”Z (69b)- a mouse that fell into a barrel of cold beer and we assume that through
kavush (soaking for 24 hours) it is like cooking (w/ a heat element of yad soledes).
Rav says that the beer is assur b/c it is one of the 8 sheratzim and is assur to eat.
Q) The taam of the mouse (achbar) made the taam of the taaroves worse, so this opinion
must hold that NTL is assur?
A) Achbar by definition is a davar maus and the Torah said it is assur, therefore the Torah
is teahing me that NTL by achbar is still assur.

Machlokes Rashba/Ra’ah: Dvarim Meusim

Rashba (p6) {“va’ane tamah”}- says that if you cook sheratzim/shekatzim with your
rice, it will be NTL and mutar.
Q) Why did the Torah assur the sheretz?
A) There are two tracks, the b’ain track and the taam track. When it comes to the taam in
a taaroves, if it is nosen taam lifgam the taaroves is mutar. The taam pgam therefore
doesn’t need shiur bitul!
The chiddush of the Torah is that one of the sheratzim is only assur when you eat it
“bifne atzmoh,” even if it is pagum l’gamre but when you eat it within a taaroves.

Ra’ah (Bedek HaBais)- does not hold of the 2 standards. He doesn’t think that something
itself is assur, but something in a taaroves would be assur w/o a shiur bitul. If the Torah
mentioned the achbar, then the taam is also assur. This is like the svara in the gemara.
Any shekatzim that aren’t mentioned in the Torah are not assur w/o good taste.

Yetushim she’e efshar l’hotzeum

A”Z (69a)- if the mouse fell into into vinegar, what is the halacha? It is assur b/c the
achbar “falls apart” in the vinegar and we are afraid that you are going to eat one of these
pieces [emartute emartut].
Are these pieces nikkar?
Rashi- says it is aino nikkar. The question is then why isn’t the mouse batel when it is
not a beriah anymore?
Meilah (16b) (p3)- the shiur of issur is a k’zais in order to get malkos and it would seem
that this same shiur applies to shekatzim b/c it uses the lashon of “achilah” when
describing that issur. The gemara then brings a second opinion that says that the shiur for
tumas sheratzim is the shiur of a lentil.
Q) Why there are 2 shiurim by sheretz? A) If you eat the sheretz while it’s alive it is not
m’tameh and then the shiur is k’zais, but when it is dead the shiur is adashah.
Machlokes Shach and Taz
Shach (p11)[104,3 top line]- says that just a sheretz has a special shiur of adashah, it also
has a special chumrah (aas an extension of adasha). Any part of a sheretz has a pseudo
din of that sheretz and still has a status of beriah. The mouse contains an issur beriah
even if it contains less than an adashah, ie a sheretz contains an issur mashehu.

Taz- [104,1] argues and says that the mouse in vinegar is assur b/c of nikkar ha’issur
(NI). The sheretz is visible in the taaroves, but it is too small to be able to get it out with a
sieve. That is why you can’t eat the taaroves and you can’t be nisanen (sift) it either.
Taz says that NI is a din deoritta even if there is a shiur bitul.

Rashba/Rambam machlokes by butter

Rambam (p13/4)- we are afraid that butter will be made from non-kosher milk. The
difference is that Kosher milk can curdle and Non-kosher milk can’t. The kosher part will
become solid and the non-kosher won’t be able to solidify (like cottage cheese). The
miktzas Geonim say that you can’t eat the solid b/c the non-kosher is right there on top of
the cheese, and it isn’t batel b/c of NI.
The Rambam says that if you can remove the issur, then it should be fine.

Rashba- says that the Rambam is not correct and it should be mutar. Anything that you
can’t remove is batel, even though it is nikkar!! The miktzas geonim and the Rambam
don’t agree to this. This is a bitul by NI as long as “ee efshar l’sanen.”
Bugs in NY
Divrei Chaim (p18)/David Shabbatai said that this might apply to the bugs in NY. We
don’t need a kefilah b/c of his expertise. 1) It might not be called nikkar w/o expert and
2) if it is very hard to rid of the bugs, perhaps it is assur (and it is batel as well). It is
unclear who we paskin like in this case. Perhaps it is possible to get part of them out.

Hakrevu Nuh L’Pechushechah

Shuls used to be lit by candles/oil. If you have oil and the achbar went into the oil, can
you use it for the shul?

A1) Rashba (p22) Toras HaBais- whatever is assur to eat you can’t use for the shul from
the pasuk from Malachi (p20) (1,8) which says “hakrevu nuh l’pechushechuh”- try to
bring these korbanus to your governor. If you can’t bring them to important people, then
you shouldn’t bring them to Hashem.

Sukkah (50a) (p21)- nishuch hamayim, if you left the water overnight, you can’t use it
overnight b/c we are afraid that the snake left poison in the water even though no person
is drinking it.
Q) So why don’t we sift out the poison according to R’ Nechemiah who says that once
something is filtered there is no more geuli? A) Filtering is only mutar for your private
house, but this water is being used in the B”M and gevoah (B”M) is a higher standard.

Maadanei Asher- based upon the gemara, we may be more strict.

Q) Do we say it is mutar to use for the shul when it is not mutar to eat OR// is oil that is
even assur to eat still have an issur of “hakrevu?”
A) The gemara in Sukkah is more machmir than the Rashba b/c the gemara says the
water is still assur even when it is mutar for a normal person to eat using filtering. The
Rashba says that if it is assur to eat, then you can’t use it and you can imply that if it is
mutar for a Jew to eat then it is mutar to use in the shul.

Rabbenu Bachya (p24) on Pinchas- says that we have to use the proper oil for the
menorah. Even if something is mutar for eating, you still shouldn’t use it for the shul if it
doesn’t meet a higher level of quality.
S”A (p12)- says that we can be somech on the makilim by makom hefsed even if the oil
is assur to eat, but if it is assur to eat you really shouldn’t use it for the shul.

Kavush K’Mevushal
Shiur 27/ Jan 2- (M) P27 YD 105

Kavush K’Mevushal: Taam is generally imparted with heat, but it can also be imparted
through soaking the solid in a liquid for a certain period of time with the absence of heat.
Requirements: 1) Liquid in a solid and 2) proper time. This works both ways, if the
liquid is tref or if the solid is tref, the issur can go both ways.

Chullin (111b)(p1)- Shmuel said that kavush is like mevushal.

Does any liquid qualify or only a sharp liquid?

Rashi Chullin (97b)(p2)- says that kavush means vinegar (chometz).
Do we take this Rashi literally and say only vinegar, or even water?

Mordechai (Beitzah) (p3)- Rashi always says vinegar when discussing kavush. The
Mordechai disagrees with Rashi b/c we have a mishna in Shevios that says:

Shevios Mishna (7,7) (p4-5)- [Ramban says it is a mitzvah to eat peros shevios] There is
a din called “shas ha’beur.” Shevios is only mutar if that same species is still on the field.
Once there are no more of that min in the field, the person has to be mafkir his fruit.
There is a different zman of biur for different species and then it becomes assur to eat.
CASE: A new rose from Shemitah was soaked in oil from the 6th year. Is that rose going
to make the 6th year oil assur? The Mishna says that you must take the rose out before the
time of kavush and the oil will be fine.
But, what happens if you have a 7th year rose in oil of the 8th year and there was already a
shas biur of that 7th year rose. If you keep the rose in long enough, then the rose will be
assur and the oil will also be assur.

The Mordechai proves from here that the din of kavush doesn’t only apply to vinegar.
This proves that Rashi can’t be davkah.

What is the shiur of kavush?

Pesachim (44b)(p6)- what is the source for TKI? Perhaps you can learn it from BB b/c
the whole issur is based upon TKI.
We say that BB is a chiddush b/c 2 mutar things make it assur.
Q) Kelaim?
A) The chiddush is: if I would soak the meat in the milk for the whole day it wouldn’t
become BB, but if I would cook BB then it would be assur.

Rosh- Why is this different than any issur where you soak it in water that it wouldn’t be
Ritzbah- said that this gemara is a proof that the shiur of KKM is 24 hours. By other
issurim, if you would keep the issur in for the whole day then the taam issur would go
into the heter. But by BB, b/c there is no issur of KKM, BB is a chiddush even though it
gets the same taam.

R’ Simon said that the es l’es shiur is very strange shiur. Ritzbah is a chiddush to say
“kulai yomah” means 24 hours.

Perhaps KKM of 24 hours only applies to oil, milk and water, but what about the
sharper liquids like zir (the salty liquids coming out from the animal) and chometz?

Rosh Chullin (p8)- says that the shiur of KKM by zir is different from other liquids. The
shiur is “the amount of time that it takes to put water on the fire and it will get cooked.”
Other liquids have a different shiur.

S”A (105,1)(p13-21)- says that the whole piece of meat is assur from the tref liquid (if
water medium was used) and if it was less than the 24 hour period then you just wash the
piece of meat and it is mutar.
Ramah- if half the solid is in the liquid and half is outside the liquid, it will be fully
S”A (105,2)- If it is kavush with zir or vinegar, then the shiur is the amount of time that
it can be on the fire and be heated up (from the shiur of bishul).
If you take it out b/f this shiur, then the outer klipah is assur (in vinegar/zir).

Cleaning Romaine Lettuce (Maror)

This issue comes up on erev Pesach when the romaine lettuce needs to be cleaned of
bugs. If we use vinegar then this issue would come up.

Pesachim Mishna (p24)- tells us that the different species of maror can’t be cooked or
Teferes Yisrael- What is that shiur of bishul by zir? says that water is 24 hours and
vinegar is 18 minutes. The shiur of bishul must be a set shiur.
Gra- perhaps the shiur of kavush is like mevushal and the shiur mevushal is 18 minutes,
so that is the source for that din.
Mordechai- says that kavush is 3 days and it includes vinegar for that 3 day shittah.

RSZ”A- says that vinegar won’t help you even less than 18 minutes. (This shiur is
gleaned from the shiur of a mil which is 18 minutes). The vinegar immediately “cooks”
k’dei kelipah and the whole lettuce is a kelipah, so the vinegar would make the lettuce
assur to use as maror.

S”A pulled a fast one!!

Be’er HaGolah- says that the S”A pulled a fast one on us- the Rosh only said his
chumrah by zir and the S”A extended this shiur to vinegar!!
How do we know if this is legitimate or not?
Shach doesn’t think it is legitimate b/c he quotes another Rosh that disagrees with the
S”A’s extension.
Rosh (p7) A”Z (87b, 11)- says that the shorter shiur by kavush only applies to zir and not
to vinegar.
Shach (p19) says that the S”A had no right to extrapolate and extend vinegar to the shiur
of zir when he’s extending the Rosh who disagrees with this din.

Pri Chadash- also says that the S”A is wrong to compare zir and vinegar.

According to the Ran- there might be another kullah of having “k’dei sheya’aleh.”
Perhaps it won’t be boleah at all.

R’ Simon- said there might be a reason to be makil on erev pesach to use vinegar to get
rid of bugs b/c the S”A seems to be on shaky ground. Perhaps by shas hadchak. There are
generally better ways to get out bugs w/o relying on the Shach and discarding the S”A.

Safek Kavush
Is KKM a deoritta or derabanan?
Issur V’heter- says that kavush is a din deoritta and safek is l’chumrah, except for BB
b/c it requires bishul and by BB, KKM is only a din derabanan.
S”A brings this I”V l’halachah in the Ramah.

Taz- by TKI the issur vaday fell in, but in our case “we don’t even know if the issur fell
in” b/c we don’t know how much time elapsed.
Q) So even by safek deoritta we should also be makil?

Shev Shematsa- quotes this din of safek kavush. He says that you don’t say safek
m’ikkarah by a safek taaroves. Here the kosher is really still kosher and something tref
fell in, you need to change the chazakas kosher, so there would still be an issur.

Kelim and KKM

If you have a kli that just had tref in it and it is clean, then you put cold soup in kli.
Issur V’heter- says that the kli’s taam goes into the soup after 24 hours and it becomes
Taz- isn’t it not a ben yomo? The last part will be pagum.
Plesi (p23)- has 2 answers?
A1) He says that it is hard to believe that up to 24 hours nothing happens and after 24
hours the flood gates open. Really the taam comes in slowly and after 24 hours there is a
palpable taam. The Plesi says that the taam comes in goes out over the 24 hours and it is
regenerating the taam over that time. It is just that not enough stuff came out until
after 24 hours.
A2) We have a machlokes- when does something become NTL, linas lailah or 24 hours.
He says that we are choshesh for linas lailah l’chumrah. If you cook something during the
night, then you’ll have 24 hours and not the entire night and we should be choshesh for
NTL l’chumrah. He says that will make some periods longer than 24 hours. He’ll use
Rashi and R”T l’chumrah.

Kli Rishon and Kli Sheni
Shiur 28/ Jan 3- (T) P28 YD 105

Are the status of belios in a kli rishon any different that those of a kli sheni? Most of our
cutlery has the status of a kli sheni b/c is isn’t used on the fire. This may mean that a baal
teshuva wouldn’t have to be worried about kashering their cutlery OR// do the kli rishon
and sheni have the same status?

What is a kli rishon?

Shabbas (40b)- Sugya of Ambatie (bottle): The gemara defined yad soledes bo (YSB) as
the heat required to burn the stomach of a young child.
There was a case where one tannah wanted to put an oil flask in a bathtub on Shabbas.
The rebbe said that this would be bishul, so he should instead take water out of the
bathtub into another kli and then heat the water in the other kli.
We learn from here that kli sheni isn’t m’vashel.

Tosefos (40b S”Mina)- says that it is clear that a kli sheni can also be YSB, so the
determination of kli status can’t be a heat issue or else a kli sheni should also be
m’vashel. It must be that the kli rishon is on the fire and the pot also becomes hot, so the
walls and the food is hot and the heat is maintained in the kli rishon. The kli sheni doesn’t
have maintained heat b/c the heat is slowly lowering from the walls.
- This may mean that kli rishon not on the fire is only an issur derabanan according to
Tosefos b/c it too is cooling down and therefore the food is also.

Kli sheni by a davar lach poured from a kli rishon

[RZNG question]- You would assume if you have a hot water urn plugged in, it is a kli
rishon and would be considered al gabeh hu’aish and the cup it is pored into would be a
kli sheni.

Pri Megadim (p11)- has a chumrah if you pour a davar lach from a kli rishon into a
second kli while the kli rishon is still on the fire. He says that the second kli has a din of
a kli rishon. Only once the kli rishon is off the fire can the second kli get the status of a
kli sheni.
Rashi (source for Pr”M)- says that the bathtub in the gemara Shabbas was getting its hot
water from an underground stream (according to Rashi) and should be considered a kli
sheni. The fact that the tanna required another kli beyond the bathtub showed that he
considered the bathtub to be a kli rishon.
- Pr”M defines kli sheni as the first kli that the food is poured into once the food is
disjointed from the original heat source. The food must be removed from the fire to get
to a kli sheni status.

It’s not clear that Tosefos holds of this shittah. Tosefos does understand that there is a din
of kli rishon al huaish, but it is probably only derabanan.

Harchakah of kli rishon
Shabbas (42b) Mishna- iflis: you can’t put tavlin in a kli rishon that is not on the fire.
This gemara shows that there is an issur even when the food is not on the fire (probably
Yerushalmi Shabbas- brings a clear definition of kli rishon as when the fire is under the
pot- this gemara seems to be the only deoritta form of kli rishon.
Yerushalmi Shabbas (p5-6)- Rav Yona says that the difference b/t a kli rishon and sheni
is that “asu harchek l’kli rishon” and “lo asu harchek l’kli sheni.”

What does this mean?

Shevisas Shabbas has 6 interpretations of this Yerushalmi
1) Pri Chadash (p8)- says that the heat is not important. The issue is making a
harchakah for a kli rishon. A kli rishon is assur even if it isn’t on the fire if the food is
ys”b and a kli sheni is mutar even if there is yad sholetes water. The mishna by ilfes is
only a chashash derabanan. This works well with all shitos.

2) Yam Shel Shlomo- says that the harchakah is that we should be machmir to use the kli
rishon that is on the fire even though the food is not ys”b like a regular kli rishon,

3) M”A- The harchakah is for a kli 1 that is NOT on the fire and which is NOT ys”b.

4) Vilna Goan [Beur HaGra] (p10)- if I take cold milk and put it on the fire for a short
amount of time, and there is a fear that you’ll leave it there for a longer period, this is
where the Yerushalmi was gozer on the kli rishon.

B’leah by kli sheni

Rashba [Toras HaBais]- Some say that only kli rishon can do belios (at ys”b) b/c it can
do bishul. This is a tremendous kullah b/c then you could go to a tref restaurant and eat
on their plates.
Rashba doesn’t think this is the pashtus. He feels that as long as the food is from the
fire it can be polet even if the food isn’t ys”b and even in a kli sheni.

Proof to Rashba
1) Chullin (8b)(p14)- if you shecht an animal with a goy’s knife:
Rav- peel the outer part (b/c the beis hashechitah can be cooked)
Rabba bar bar Channah- wash off (maidiach) the place of the shechitah (b/c the blood
is “polet harbeh,” but if not, then it would cook).
Therefore both agree that there is enough heat to give belios and the beis hashechitah
isn’t a kli rishon and can be colder than a kli sheni

-- Maybe the Rashba doesn’t have such a good example b/c this beliah is NOT a function
of heat, so it doesn’t matter how hot the beis hashechitah is.

2) Chullin (8b)- if an animal was shechted and chelev is removed from the animal, you
shouldn’t put the chelev on top of meat b/c the taam chelev will get into the meat b/c it is
very hot when it is being taken out of the animal.
Proof- if the chelev out of the body of the animal is able to be polet then a kli sheni
would also be able to. Here the chelev is also detached so he wants a kal v’chomer to kli
sheni (vs. Tos.).
Problem for Rashba- is the same as #1, the beliah isn’t specifically a function of the

Tur- says Rashba’s rayos aren’t good b/c these gemaros can only do belios to kdei
klipah. The whole item can only be cooked if the heat is ys”b.

Q on Tur) there is still a beliah to kdei klipah and the other rishonim said there aren’t
any belios?
A) S”A- L’chatchilah you should be nizhar not to put hot chicken on their kli sheni, but
b’de’eved it is mutar w/o klipah and hadacha alone is needed (like those that the Rashba
quoted originally) when a ys”b food was put on a kli sheni.

What do you do with the old china?

RA”E- says that even if we rely on the S”A, this would only apply to items that can be
kashered, but kli cheres, which can’t be kashered would be mutar l’chatchilah even
without hagalah!!
Some say that old china needs to be pot in a self cleaning oven cycle (which can destroy
the china) and other recommend that the china not be used for 12 months b/f use.

Minchas Yaakov- perhaps aino ben yomo uto ben yomo doesn’t apply to a kli cheres b/c
the gezerah was only on metal kelim. The chachamim didn’t want people to throw out
dishes and the gezerah was to force people to do hagalah.
Many Achronim are against the Minchas Yaakov.

Davar Gush and Kli Rishon

Yam Shel Shlomo (p23) big chumrah of davar gush: he says that kli sheni only applies
to davar lach, but not to a davar gush, b/c it maintains a kli rishon state even on an
actual kli sheni, but the food item is still considered a kli rishon and then all the kullos are
gone. He says that the tref chicken puts bleos into the pot and all the heterim for china
wouldn’t be there anymore! He said that solids don’t cool down like liquids do (his
shittah deals more with the metzius of the hot davar gush cooling down).
Issur V’heter- also talks about basar in a pot and says that the walls that would cool off
the liquids in a kli sheni aren’t cooling off the davar gush, therefore the davar gush
doesn’t have the kli sheni status even on a second plate. (His argument focuses more on
the walls cooling the davar lach and not the davar gush.)

R’ Moshe- hot chicken in the ketchup if the chicken is a kli rishon and is this aba”b and
ketchup is a davar lach even if it was already cooked. He says that putting together all the
food, when it is fully cooled ketchup we can still be matir.

S”A (94,7) (p25)- he says that if a hot piece of meat is cut with a milk knife, the whole
piece of meat is assur (w/o 60 against the makom ha’sakin). If it’s a ben yomo
Rameh- disagrees with the YSS and I”V: the Rameh says that a hot piece of davar gush is
only assur if the davar gush is in a kli rishon, but if the meat is in a kli sheni then only a
klipah of the meat needs to be removed.
Taz- we should be machmir like the YS”S.

Tosefos A”Z [Ri]- if a person scoops up the boiling water with a ladel, can you use this
ladel for hagalah (ie is it a kli sheni)?
He is machmir both ways. By hagalah we are machmir and say it is a kli sheni, but in a
case of removing the feathers of the chicken where you put it in boiling water, we say
that ladel is a kli rishon.
Maharil- says that if you leave the ladel in the kli rishon long enough it’s a kli rishon,
but to ladel out is a kli sheni.
Taz- says that it is a kli rishon.
Rayah from Shabbas (40b) from ambate case. If a ladel automatically is kli sheni then
why say “toll b’kli sheni” and not “toll b’kli” which would automatically be a kli sheni.
Pri Megadim- says anything from a fire is a kli rishon.
R’ Shachter- if the plate that the soup is poured into is hot then the soup plate might not
be a kli shelishi.
Bram Weinberg- said that styrofoam would always be a kli sheni (ie if it is used as a

Iruy Kli Rishon
Shiur 29/ Jan 4- (W) P29 YD 105 (Jay Weinstein/ Bram Weinberg’s Notes)

Iruy is very Halacha L’Maaseh. You are taking a Kli Rishon and pouring onto something.
A good example would be a sink. If you take dirty (mamashut) milk dishes and dirty
meat dishes, put them in the sink and clean them together with boiling hot water from a
kli rishon, are the pots tref?
We have seen the status of a kli rishon on the fire (belios deoritta) and off the fire
(derabanan), but what is the status of iruy? Is it like a kli rishon or sheni?

Tosefos Shabbos (42b) quotes a machloket about this. The Mishna says you can’t put an
ambate into a kli rishon, but putting it into anything else is mutar. Tosefos then says that
a kli sheni is mutar, which implies that iruy kli rishon is assur.
R”T/Rei- iruy kli rishon = kli rishon (not on the fire)
Rashbam- iruy k”r= kli sheni
R’ Baruch- iruy cooks kdei klipah.

NM: Iruy by Hagalat Kalim

NM: Tosefos A”Z (74b)- Rav says that to purify a winepress (that became tref by yayin
nesech) you need to scald it with boiling water.
R”T says that since the size of the winepress presumably can’t be done in another kli, so
scalding is done by iruy kli rishon. m yayin nesesh. They prove from here that iruy is kli
rishon and this gemara is referring to yayin nesech where beliyot were not from heat.
Rashbam disagees and says that this din is specific to a winepress and doesn’t apply to
kashering a pot. He also says that generally iruy is k’kli sheni.

Tatah gavar or ilahah gavar

Belios require heat the reaches the temperature of ys”b. This degree of heat will permit a
bishul of the whole food item.
What if you have one hot piece of meat sitting on top of a cold piece w/o any water
medium, does the cold piece cool off the hot one or does the hot piece penetrate the cold
one and cook it?
Pesachim 75a has a machloket between Rav and Shmuel. What if you have hot and cold
meat where you put one piece on top of the other where one piece is kosher and one is
tref. What “wins”, the top win or the bottom? If both are hot then the issur definitely
cooks the heter and if they are both cold then neither cooks (just wash off the kosher
piece). If the “hot piece” was on the fire then the bottom would win unless the bottom
piece got hot.
Rav- elaha gavar
Shmuel- tatuay gavar
We pasken that the bottom is the stronger piece and we go after its state, whether cold or
hot, b/c bishul always takes place bottom up [Rav].
The gemara does say that even if you hold tatuay gavar, if you leave a cold piece under a
hot one, there must be some beliahs of kdei klepah that get into the bottom piece.

Tosefos A”Z- Rabbenu Baruch says that the machlokes of R”T and the Rashbam is based
upon the machlokes of tatuay gavar. R’ Baruch says that iruy is not like kli rishon or
sheni, but it in between which will make the beliah only kdei kelipah.
We pasken like this middle shitah and iruy will make a kedei klipah assur.
However, the Tosefos [Pesachim] says that kelipah is a chumrah, so if the substance is
one where kelipah is not possible, like a liquid, we will ignore kelipah and say that the
iruy is like a kli sheni.
The Rashbam seems to fit better with the psak of tatuay gavar and R”T wouldn’t.

If we paskin tatuay gavar how does R”T say that iruy is k’kli rishon?
Issur V’heter wants to defend R’ Tam from the gemara [Pesachim]. By tatuay gavar, the
heat source is no longer there (disconnected from the heat source) and therefore there is
a hefsek b/t the pieces of meat and their heat source, therefore the bottom piece will win.
But, by a case of iruy, the hot item is still connected to the fire, therefore we can’t apply
the tatuay gavar standard and there would still be belios and the iruy can be considered
like a kli rishon.

Pour meat juice onto ab”y milk plate

Issur V’heter discusses a question where you take hot meat juice and pour it onto a milk
plate which is aino ben yomo.
We pasken that belios in a kli are treated in a more strict fashion than if the meat food
was cooked in the plate and there is an issur even if the kli isn’t ben yomo. But, the bowl
is only assur kdei kelipah. Therefore the kli is assur and needs hagalah but the food is

What happens if you do multiple iruys?

If we use a kli that had belios of b”b as a kli rishon for kosher soup- do you need 60
against the whole bowl or just the kelipah? The pashtus would be that we would be
m’sha’ar against only the kelipah of the bowl, but the fear is that many belios were done
and therefore there are many kelipos. Perhaps each new iruy infects another portion of
the bowl?
Issur V’heter says that it will go past kdei klipah and will make the whole kli assur.
Chavat Daat says that no matter how many belios, the iruy’s potency stops at k’dei

Maflit Umavlia K’achad

In a kli rishon, the heat has the ability to take taam out of one solid and put it into another
solid at the same time. Not everything has that power. The liquid in a kli rishon can
penetrate all the food items in the kli (maflit and mavliah).
Does iruy have the power to take tref taam out of a solid and put it into
another solid at the same time?
Remah (95,3)- if you pour boiling water on dairy and meat dishes together in a sink, the
two dishes are mutar b/c iruy is not really like a kli rishon (unlike R”T) being maflit and
mavliah when it comes to the two kelim, so nothing becomes assur.
If you put all your dishes in the sink (both meat and milk)- the worst that will happen is
that you have iruy (which would make a kdei kelipah of issur if tref was poured onto the

plate), but it’s not strong enough to take the taam from the meatball and put it into the
milk dishes.

Remah (68,10) [hilchos Melicha] Meliga means that if you want to take off the feathers
of a chicken is to boil it in hot water. The problem is that to do the meliga, you must pour
boiling water on the chicken and this would mean that he is pouring boiling water on the
chicken with its blood still there b/c it is b/f melichah and it should tref up the chicken.
The Remah therefore paskins that you can’t do meliga on a chicken in a kli rishon unless
you take out the assur parts and the blood, as well, you can’t do meliga with iruy kli

How can this be, if the iruy is not maflit and mavliah?
Shach asks: Q) how can the Remah say by meliga that you can’t do it with iruy but when
it comes to the dishes together we say that you CAN do iruy. What’s the difference?
A) Restatement of Remah: the Remah holds that iruy is maflit umavlit k’achat except
for when it comes to kalim b/c kalim are harder to penetrate and they need a stronger
transfer than simply iruy.
But, by chicken, iruy is strong enough because chicken isn’t so strong.

Shach rejects this restatement and brings the Hagahot Sharay Dura (Terumas
HaDeshen) who holds that iruy kli rishon is maflit umavlia k’achat even in a kli.
Therefore, you should NOT clean your dishes with iruy kli rishon.

You can’t accuse someone that only has one sink that it is mamush tref b/c he has the
Remah to rely on. [This is even without the pgam of soap, and nat bar nat and non ys”b
water.] But, l’chatchilah we should be machmir like the the Shach, who says it is mfalit
umavlia by kalim.

Q) On the Remah: what if there is liquid on the plate when you pour the boiling water on
the plate. Maflit and mavliah is only difficult by a solid with another solid, but maybe
iruy kli rishon can infuse from a liquid into a solid or into a kli?

What about by a dishwasher which would also seem to have the same dinim as a sink, but
it might not be iruy b/c the heating element is actually IN the dishwasher so it could be
considered a kli rishon?
Rabbi Gedalya Burger thinks a dishwahser should be more chamur because the heating
element in the dishwasher itself. Therefore, the water going around is not necessarily iruy

Also, this whole discussion is with hot water. If it’s with cold water it’s no problem.

Iruy not in the air but on a stove

What if iruy is poured on something else?
Terumat Hadeshen (SHUT) discusses the case of hot milk on the fire. The milk over
flows onto the stove and touches a piece of meat. Is this like iruy kli rishon and the basar
is assur? Or// iruy has its special status b/c it is in the air until it lands, but here the water
went onto the stove and cooled off b/f hitting the meat?

Th”D says that the liquid is called iruy kli rishon as long as it’s still yad soledet bo. We
see a proof from chamey teveria where it stays iruy kli rishon even though it’s not in the
air, since it’s flowing from the original heat source.
Shach says it’s still assur kdei kelipah.
Rema- Iruy is only when the liquid is still flowing from the kli rishon, but once the flow
is interrupted from its source, it is no longer considered iruy k”r and can’t infuse to a kdei
klipah. Kli sheni has NO beliyot.

Remah- also assumes that the discussion of ilahah gavar verses tatahah gavar can apply
to two plates as well.
Maharshal disagrees with this Rema.

Belios B’li Rotev
Shiur 30/ Jan 9- (M) P30 YD 105

Tzli and beliah

Q) What if there is no rotev, but the heating was done through tzli? Tzli also has the
ability to be maflit u’mavliah, but perhaps not to the same degree as bishul?

Chullin (96b)- a thigh that was cooked with a gid hanashe, the din is based upon whether
there was taam in the thigh to the degree calculated by the shiur of basar b’lefes. But, if
the thigh and gid were tzli-ed together then the din is “kolef v’achel ad shemagiah l’gid.”
This gemara is mashmah that you can eat the basar even if there isn’t 60 k’neged the gid.

Q) Don’t we have another gemara that says that a piece of meat that was roasted can’t be
eaten (even “ad rosh uzno”) b/c the issur goes throughout the piece of meat?
A) This is talking about tzli done with chelev, which is different b/c it spreads out in the
tzli-ing process.
Normally, a liquid medium is required to totally penetrate the whole piece of kosher
meat, but this gemara teaches that if a fatty substance is involved, that is like a liquid.
If neither piece is fatty and both are solid, then the belios aren’t going to go through the
tref piece to the kosher piece.
Q) There is a case where the animal was roasted with fat and it was matir?
A) That was a “lean” animal.
- We are generally machmir even though the meat might be kachush (lean) and we will
treat the pieces as shamen.
Tosefos (R”T)- explains the gemara in Chullin of kachush to mean that kachush meat
doesn’t spread throughout the kosher piece of meat or// that the lean piece of meat has
some fat that is batel b’60 in the kosher piece.

Is the shiur of bishul and roasting the same: 60?

Roasting would seem to be the same as bishul and the issue would be one of 60
(assuming a fatty substance), but the Rishonim point out that the shiur is not the same
even if the roasting is “m’fapeah b’kullo.”

Rashba (p3)-
Kdei Netilah- requires that a person still has to remove a portion from the kosher piece
that is roasted with tref even if there is 60 k’neged the tref. (A kdei netilah- is the shiur
equal to the thickness of a finger, which is a larger shiur.)

Kdei Kelipah- if the bottom piece is cold and the top piece is assur and hot, tatuay gavar
is the psak. But, even though the kosher piece cools off the piece of issur, the gemara in
Pesachim says that for the first few minutes the bottom is cooked and you must remove a
kdei kelipah.

Why is the shiur kdei netilah here?

Rabbenu Yona (Issur V’heter)- when you do bishul, it is clear that the taam will be
nis’pashet throughout the whole taaroves, but by tzli, it’s not clear that it will be

mifapeah b’kulloh. Therefore, we are machmir and we fear that most gets stuck in the
outer layer and therefore a kdei netilah must be removed. We are machmir both ways,
for 60 and kdei netilah.
[The shiur of kdei netilah must be removed even though there was 60 k’neged the issur!]

S”A (105,4-5) (p15/6)- says l’halacha that we distinguish b/t lean and fatty meat and the
shiur of kdei netilah is only by a lean piece, whereas a fatty piece requires a shiur of 60.
This would also be true if there is a piece of lean tref meat on top of a potato that is in a
taaroves (which would be tzli). The din is that a kdei netilah of the potato must be

Kesef Mishna says that the Rambam holds that kachush means a minimal amount of fat,
so it will be batel b’60, but there is no fundamental difference b/t a shamen and kachush
Rambam (p2)- doesn’t have the shiur of kdei netilah, he says that if there is a lean piece
of meat that is less than 60:1 then ‘kolef v’ochel,’ remove the chelev and eat it. A fatty
piece of meat is m’fapeah b’kulloh, but kachush has a 60.
We hold like the Rashba and S”A vs. the Rambam

Ain ha’baluah yotzeh ma’chtichah l’chatichah bli rotev

CASE 1) If you have lettuce and you cook it together with tref meat, the lettuce is tref b/c
there is no 60. If you remove the meat and place this lettuce (w/ belios of tref) on a grill,
and roast it with kosher meat w/o shiur 60, is the kosher meat assur b/c of the lettuce?
A) Rashba (p6)- The meat isn’t assur. If the issur is assur b/c of belios of issur, then that
beliah will only come out through bishul and not through tzli. This is the principle of “ain
ha’baluah yotzeh ma’chtichah l’chatichah bli rotev.”

CASE 2) What if the chatichah of heter is roasted with kosher fat that was made tref by
being cooked with tref meat?
A) The kosher piece of meat is mutar even though the davar issur is fat and fat is treated
like bishul b/c we don’t say that the fat can take the tref taam further than it could’ve
gone itself.

CASE 3) What about tref chelev cooked with kosher meat, then the kosher meat with
belios of tref chelev is then roasted with another kosher piece of meat?
A) In this case, the belios of chelev DO make the other piece of meat assur.

Efshar L’hafrido
Q) If you put a piece of meat in vat of milk on fire: you then take the meat with belios of
milk and you roast it with kosher meat, does that kosher piece of meat become b”b?
1) On one hand, this piece of meat is b’b, so the other piece should become assur b/c of
the issur of b’b and there is a chiuv of 60 plus kdei netilah. It then wouldn’t matter if the
milk doesn’t come out b/c the meat itself is issur b’fnei atzmoh
2) OR// the issur of the first piece was from belios of milk (beliah ma’issur), and
therefore if you roast it with the other piece of meat then the belios don’t come out and
the other piece of meat is assur.

N”M: Efshar l’hafrido- is a case where you are sure that all the issur (in this case, the
milk) was totally removed from the heter.

Why is efshar l’sochto assur?

Two possibilities: 1) Rav and 2) Rashba
A1) Rav Soloveitchik- ein bitul ela b’techilas ha’taaroves: even though the Rav would
say that efshar l’sochto is assur b/c no matter how much milk is removed, the meat will
still remain assur, the Rav will agree that in a case of efshar l’hafrido, where all the milk
can be removed, that the meat would be MUTAR.
This means that the milk is really an issur beliah, as proven from the psak that the
meat would be mutar in a case of efshar l’hafrido.
R’ Koenegsberg quotes the Rav- as questioning whether this piece of meat is an issur
baluah or b’b mamush.

A2) Rashba (p7)- says that the piece of b’b is considered an issur baluah b/c you can’t be
sure that everything was removed. It is an issur of metzios and you can’t get all of the
milk out.

Sefer HaTerumah (p13)-

Tipas Chaluv- chulent with piece of meat on top and a drop of milk falls on top of the
piece of meat. If there is 60 against the drop of milk it will be mutar, but the question is
what is included in the 60: a) the whole pot or b) is it a separate battle b/t the piece of
meat and the milk?
A) The gemara says that if the meat is sticking out of the pot fully, then it is the milk
against that piece of meat and it will only assur the whole pot if that piece then goes into
the rest of the kederah.
Q) Why won’t that piece mess up the rest of the pot?
A) Sefer HaTerumah answers that this proves that the belios of the milk in the meat
won’t go into the pot to make it assur: and we say “ain ha’baluah.”

Tur (p11)- simple reading is that b’b that is roasted WILL ASSUR other pieces of meat
b/c it is an issur atzmoh and make the meat into a cheftzah of b’b.
S”A (p17) (95,7)- quotes the Tur!! This seems to go against the Rashba.

Taz- was adamant that the Rashba and Sefer HaTerumah have to be correct, so he will
say a different p’shat in the Tur and S”A. He feels the Rashba is correct b/c that is the
pashtus in the sugyah about tipas chalav, (stirring is the only way to create issur in tipas
chalav) and therefore he must re-interpret the S”A.
S”A really means: not that the meat got a beliah and thereby made another piece of meat
assur. The S”A is discussing a case hot meat touching cheese and the cheese is the davar
ha’oser machmas atzmoh and that is why tzli can create the issur in the piece of meat.
The S”A is discussing the formation case of b’b and comparing it to neveilah which can
make another piece assur through negeah during tzli, but the S”A isn’t saying that belios
of a b’b piece can make another kosher piece of meat assur.

The Taz says that the next line in the S”A (105,7) is talking about belios of b’b (which is
an issur beliah and can’t transfer to another issur w/o rotuv).
The Shach would say that this line must be talking about neveilah that had belios of issur
and not b’b which is an issur atzmoh.

Shach- says that the S”A is k’peshuto.

Q) What about the gemara? A) The gemara which says that you have to bring it back into
the liquid is the havah aminah, but once we learn about CNN, the whole piece is b’b and
then the piece of kosher meat will be assur w/ tzli b/c everyone agrees to CNN by b’b.
Shach quotes the Terumas HaDeshen [in Hagaos Sha’are Durah] (p14)-
Q) Why by the case of CH”L b’b isn’t considered to be an issur baluah and here there
Rashba says that it is an issur baluah?
A) He says that the Rashba is correct: in a case where there is milk, like a case of CH”L,
then the meat is considered guf ha’issur and is an issur machmas atzmoh. BUT, when
there is no milk, like in the case of efshar l’hafrido, then we don’t view it as guf hu’issur,
but is only an issur baluah.
Example: If you have a wool talis with one thread of linen, it’s kelaim. If you cut away a
little bit of the begged that had the linen string, the begged is now not shatnez. B’b (or the
piece of meat) requires chalav to trigger the issur machmas atzmoh.
If we can remove the milk from the piece of meat, then it would be mutar like the Rashba
and Sefer HaTerumah.

Ochel to kli
If you have a plate that is ben yomo that is clean and you used the plate for hot kosher
meat w/o rotev: The plate is baluah, but ain habaluah yotzeh m’chatihah l’chatichah blo
HaGaos Sha’are Durah (p22)- has a chiddush that is assumed l’halacha: belios don’t go
from one piece of meat to another w/o rotuv, but by kelim you don’t need rotev to get
the belios.
Rayah- from the sugyah of nat bar nat. Hot fish put on a meat kli and you want to know
whether you can eat it with cheese. The gemara says that the taam is too weak.
Q) Why don’t you matir it b/c “ain habaluah?”
A) We see from here that there can be a beliah from a kli even w/o rotev.
Ramah- brings down the Sha’are Durah.
Taz- explains that by a food it is harder to get belios in and out (of a food item), but by a
kli, the kli takes in and lets out belios more easily.

2 kederos
Example: 2 kelim, milk and meat touch each other and both are ben yomo (ie a stove).
Shach (p20)- says that a kli can assur a food w/o rotev, but not from one kli to another kli
w/o rotev.
Remah (p29)- to get belios from one kli to another kli (like by iruy) is a higher standard,
but he says that we should be zahir.
Mordechai (p27)- is the earliest source of the din that kelim that touch don’t give taam to
each other.
R’ Moshe- says that you can use the same grates and counters for milk and meat.

There will never be enough rotuv on the counter to make it boleah.

Q) Perhaps there is rotev by tzli?

A) Chavas Daas (p25)- says that a little spill isn’t rotev. You need a significant amount
of water. Milk in a meat pot requires 60, but you don’t need 60 against the spill. Tzli isn’t
totally dry, but tzli isn’t considered rotev.
Remah (p24) in b’b: what happens if milk spills over the side of a milk pot (like Th”d of
last time) and it hits a piece of meat, it may or may not make the meat assur.

We are machmir by belios on Pesach.

R’ Moshe- has a teshuva on the tri-pod.

Chasam Sofer- if you have 2 thin kelim that touch each other, the belios won’t go from
one to the other, but in a thick kli, a beliah in one part will go from one side to the other
even if it is thicker than the two pots together [car service mashul.]

Meliach K’Roseach and Issur Dovuk
Shiur 31/ Jan 10- (T) P31 YD 105

Another case of beliah that doesn’t require heat is meliach (salt) that is present b/t the
issur and the heter.

I) Chullin (97b)(p1)- Shmuel said that meliach is k’roseach and kavush k’mevushal.
Q) Why doesn’t the gemara say that meliach and kavush are k’mevushal even though in
both of these cases there are belios w/o liquid medium?

The gemara quotes a case of thighs attached to the gid hanashe that were salted together:
Ravina- said it was assur and R’ Acha- said it was muttar.
A) The gemara says that roseach can’t mean k’mevushal from the fact that Shmuel split
b/t meliach and kavush, where kavush is k’mevushal and roseach means tzli and not
cooking with a liquid medium.

II) Chullin (112a)(p2)- there was a bird that fell into salty milk (yogurt) which was cold:
the psak was that the taaroves was mutar even though the yogurt was salty. The reason
was that only time that the salt does “meliach k’roseach” is when the food is salty to the
degree of “aino ne’echal machmas mulcho,” that it is not able to be eaten b/c of the salt.

III) Chullin (96b)(p3)- how much is the beliah into the issur?
Tosefos says that it is in the kelipah hasumuchah lo (if you hold of CNN and if there is
some taam, the heter can become a cheftzah of issur and then you would need 60 against
the kelipah and the rest of the animal.) Kdei kelipah is the shiur when the piece of meat
is NOT FATTY with a salty piece of food.
[K’tzli doesn’t mean like tzli mamush, b/c tzli is always a kdei netilah, but salting can be
kdei kelipah.]

IV) Chullin (113a)(p4)- kosher fish with tref fish salted: meliach k’roseach only applies
when the davar ha’assur is the salted part, but if the davar hakasher is the salted part,
then we don’t say that the salt takes the taam of the tref fish into the kosher fish.
Psak: The salt will immediately give belios as long as the item reached the state of “aino
ne’echal machmas mulcho.”

Tosefos (113a)- I) if the tref is the davar maluch it will assur whether it is on the top or
on the bottom. The halachos of ila’ah or tatuay gavar don’t apply here. You only have to
ask one question: which is salted.
[We don’t hold like this point in Tosefos.]
II) They used to have kelim that were used to shape the cheese into forms. Q) Can you
borrow the goy’s cheese forms which are ben yomo even though, apparently there was
salt put into the tref cheese when it was made. Do we say that these forms will tref up the
kosher cheese?
A) Tosefos says that you can borrow the goy’s forms even if you salt the kosher cheese
when its being made, b/c the davar assur is the kli and the davar assur must be salted, and

the kli wasn’t salted only the tref cheese: this is called “ain melichah b’kelim” and the
food will remain kosher.
Remah (91,5) (p15)- says that ain meliach b’kelim is only by polet, but it will be
boleah. We said that zir is assur (b/c of dam) and that salty liquid will go into the kli w/o
holes and will require hagalah even though the beliah is machmas meliach.

Rashba vs. Tosefos concerning ilaha gavar

Rashba (p5)- says that the davar tumeh must be the salted one to create issur, b/c the salt
in the kosher food doesn’t have the power to pull the taam out of the tref food.
Rashba (p6) Bais HaKatzar- disagrees with Tosefos: he argues that if the tref salty piece
is tatuay then there are belios transferred, but if the tref piece is on top, then the issur
doesn’t go down and there is only a kdei kelipah of issur.
N”M- is when the tref food is fatty and it would’ve gone through the whole kosher item
if it was on the bottom, but Tosefos would say that it is like tzli even if it is on the top.
[Avichai: is it so clear that Tosefos would say that a salty tref ilaha would extend further
than tzli and make the bottom kosher piece, assur kdei kulloh?]

S”A (105,11)(p13)- holds like the Rashba concerning tatuay gavar

Remah (105,11)- quotes the Tosefos as yesh cholkim, and that we are noheg like

S”A (105,12)- he is matir by the goyish cheese pots.

Remah- says that goyish pots is only mutar b’de’eved.

Fatty meliach
S”A (105,9)(p9)- the regular din meliach is kdei kelipah is only w/o fat, but the shuman
hagid we should be machmir and take off “kdei makom” and real fat goes through the
whole kosher piece. See S”A for full explanation.
Remah (p11)- says that some say that salting always says it is kdei kelipah (Ra’aviah)
B/c we aren’t expert we always are m’sha’ar against 60 like by bishul. If there is an issur
davuk then the issur davuk must be 60 against the issur or else it too is assur and either
way a kdei kelipah must be removed.

Issur Davuk
If you have a davar issur in the pot, we are generally m’sha’ar against 60 of all the other
things in the pot. But, what if the davar issur is attached to another piece of meat in the
taaroves (1+1) and there are 90 other pieces of meat? In this case there is 60 against the
chelev, but not against the issur plus the davuk. Do we see this attached piece of meat as
issur and a separate entity of issur?
Ex: the heart of the animal or the chelev the heart is blood and if you cook the whole
chicken with 60 against it then it’s mutar, or else it’s assur.
Remah (p18) [Hilchos Melichah]- b/c the heart is connected to other meat then there is
an issur.
This sugya requires the Remah’s shittah of CNN by sha’ar issurim (the Mechaber
would not hold of issur davuk, b/c he only holds of CNN by B”B!!).

Reasons for issur davuk
Q) What is the reason for this din and that this piece of meat is different and it is
considered assur?

1) Shach (72,18) (p18)- normally the reason why we use 60 is b/c the taam dissipates
through the mixture, but by an issur davuk, then there will be one spot that the taam will
be more concentrated in the piece that it is davuk to, and that is why we have to be
machmir by an issur davuk. 60 is b/c of equal dissipation.
You can win if the issur hadavuk is 60 against the issur itself: ie mishna in Chullin (96b).
2) Taz quotes the Issur V’heter and says that there is another reason: issur davuk is a
chashash that the chelev and the basar ha’davuk were together outside the pot w/o the
other pieces of meat and there was no 60 even though there is now 60 in the pot.

Pri Megadim (p20)-

Q1) What about an issur davuk that is only an issur derabanan?
Q2) Does issur davuk only apply to something that was naturally connected or even
something that is not naturally connected (like a worm embedded in a fish/ stuffing in the
A1) If the whole thing is from a chashash (Taz) then it would only apply to an issur
deoritta and not derabanan, but the first reason (Shach) would also apply by an issur
A2) The Shach’s shittah would only apply to a natural connection, while the Taz’s would
even apply to a non-natural one.

Therefore, the Pr”M says by an issur derabanan w/o a natural connection that neither
svara should apply. (Taz is safek derabanan l’kullah and Shach would hold an issur if the
connection wasn’t natural).
Ex: On thanksgiving were there is tref stuffing m’derabanan then he’d be matir.
Pri Megadim (p22)- handbook for Rabbis [O”C (chelek 1)]- also quotes this halachah.

Chavas Daas- says that it has to be “davuk b’toldah” (naturally) [the important factor] so
the issur would only apply to the heart or chelev and not to non-natural connections.
Issur V’heter (p24)/ Maharil- discuss an apple that had a worm in it which is an issur

Reichah V’Za’ah
Shiur 32/ Jan 11- (W) P32 YD 105
Eruvin (55)- you should learn a little and chazer. The chachamim know this but they don’t really follow it.

Reichah milsa
Pesachim (76a-b)(p1-2)- you are roasting two items in the oven simultaneously, the
kosher is shamen and the tref is lean.
Rav (R”Y) says that the kosher one is assur. In this case, the kosher fat will go over to the
tref meat and then it will go back to the kosher and assur it.
[vs. last shiur where we said that the tref piece must be the fatty one b/c a fatty kosher
piece of meat won’t be able to get taam from melichah.]
Levi disagreed and said that even lean kosher meat roasted with fatty tref meat is not a
problem, b/c reichah is lav milsah w/o a conduit of water and Levi paskined this way
l’halachah (see Rashi).

Erev Pesach: each korban Pesach has a group and the halacha is that the korbanos can’t
be tzli-ed together.
Q) Isn’t this against Levi and the fear is that the korbanos are going to give taam to each
A) No, we are afraid that one group will take the korban of another group and that is the
fear. This is not specifically against Levi.
Q) The gemara then says that “even if the korbanos are a gdi and t’le we still don’t allow
them to be cooked together.” This implies that we would’ve thought that we could cook
them together and this would meant that the initial problem wasn’t reichah, but was fear
that one group would take the other group’s pesach and this is against Rav?
A) He says that each pesach is in a pot, so there is no fear of taam: even though there is
still a fear of inadvertent taking even in this case.
Q) That’s not tzoleh?
A) Rav meant that it is like each pesach is in its own pot where even according to Rav
there is no taam. [But, how far is this?]
[Malbim- kol ditzrich- how can all people eat from the seder, not everyone can eat from
the korban pesach b/c you have to be signed up from before?]

If there is no fat in the meat, but only liquid, then it doesn’t create issur.

What about the shiur of 60 with this halachah?

Rif says that Rav is Rav l’shitaso that mb”m isn’t batel and we don’t paskin like this Rav.
I’m not sure what the answer to the question was.

A”Z (66b)- a barrel of wine with a hole in it, can you smell the aroma of the tref wine? Is
this considered as if you drank the wine or not? What about if a goy smelled the Jew’s
By a goy smelling the kosher wine, all agree it is mutar.
By a Jew smelling the goyish wine there is a machlokes:
Rava- mutar, reichah is lav milsah.
Abaye- assur, reichah milsa.

We paskin like Rava except for yaal k’gam

Rashi Pesachim (76b)- says the halachah is like Levi, b/c he is like Rava and we hold
like Rava.
Tosefos A”Z [Rava] (p3)- says that R”T holds like Rav, but what about holding like
Rava? R”T says that these sugyos don’t need to be consistent (vs. Rashi). Tosefos
explains that these two sugyos aren’t connected b/c Rava can say like Rav as well, b/c
here in A”Z the smell is a mazik and in Pesachim it isn’t so we say that reichah is milsah
and it’s assur like Rav.
He also says that the halacha is like Rav only by a small oven, but with a big oven then
we don’t have to worry about reichah if it is big as long as it’s not closed up.

{A”Z (67a)(p5)- another application of reiach- if you have yayin nesech wine that a piece
of bread was put on top: will the wine make the bread assur [the factors are the heat of
the bread and whether the barrel is open or not]?}

Rif- says that poskim hold like Levi and this memrah of Rav has to do with mb”m isn’t
batel and we are against R”Y of mb”m aino batel.
Chiddushe Anshe Shem- is machmir in both places.

Summary: We need 1) fat and 2) bas achas (that the pieces are there together) with
roasting and even with all this perhaps we still hold like Levi!

Rambam (p7)- seems to hold like Rav l’chatchilah, but b’de’eved it’s mutar like Levi.
[Q) Is it a problem or not? Is he really holding ma’ikkar ha’din like Levi?]

Rashba/Tur- rehashes the sugyah.

S”A- quotes the Rambam about l’chatchilah b’de’eved and if it is a big tanur then he can
even roast them l’chatchilah or even if you cover one of the pieces they’ll both be mutar.

Tur/B”Y (p11)- gets involved in the issue of smelling things that are assur.
B”Y [from Orchos Chaim]- can you smell pepper in the tref wine? You are getting the
hana’ah from the kosher tavlin and not from the wine, what’s the din?
Don’t use this for havdalah b/c of hakrivenu nuh l’fechusechah, but the psak is: if
something is meant for the smell it is assur to smell, but it would be mainly used for
achilah, then it would be mutar. And the pepper wine would be mutar to smell.
S”A- brings down this B”Y.
RZN”G- what about heter and assur b’samim. It would seem to be assur.

Based upon the B”Y and Orchos Chaim maybe you could smell the smell from a tref
restaurant b/c it is omed l’achilah even when dealing with basar b’chalav.

Steam from tref soup and you put something kosher on top into the steam.

Machshirim Mishna- for an ochel to be m’kabel tumah it must come into contact with
one of the 7 mashkim (yad shachat dam) that were detached from the ground.
If you have a bath of water and an apple on top, is it considered as if the apple fell into
the water?
Yes, and the mishna says that if the bathhouse water is tameh, then the ability to become
tameh and the tumah come at once.

[Or Yerushalaim Torah Journal: Yad shachat dam: for the holidays. Yayin- purim, dam-
yom kippur, shemen- Chanukah, chalav-shevuos, tal-pesach, dvash- r”h, mayim- sukkos.]

Rosh- co-opts this mishna from tumah to yoreh deah (chiddush).

Q) If you have a milchik pot can you put it under a meat pot?
A) He thinks that it should be assur even b’de’eved b/c za’ah is worse than reichah. The
za’ah is like b’ain.

[Tishtush ha’techumen- means when you have different techumin w/in halacha and you
remove the techum and apply one thing to another.
R’ Horowitz says that the Ruguchuver did this: if you need to say tefilas haderech on the
airplane, he learns from sheluach hakan.
Brisk is against the pilpul (Avnei Nezer style) and you need to know when it is a
legitimate comparison or not.
R’ Shachter- Dam l’dam, din l’din, negah l’negah- there are different dinim in each case
for safek etc. so it’s not so simple to apply the dinim from one category to another.
R’ Willig- you must tell me why the categroies should be different or why it should be
the same.]

Terumas HaDeshen- how high up can the heter be and still get za’ah to become assur?
A) Yad soledes bo (ys”b). Therefore, people who would hang their salamis from the
ceiling under milk pots and the za’ah isn’t ys”b at that point, the salamis are mutar.
Mechaber (p20)- quotes the Rosh Shut.
Remah (p22)- quotes the Th”d.

Pri Megadim (handbook for Rabbi)- only wants to say za’ah for mashkim and not for
ochlim because it isn’t significant [from a Rambam.]
What about with fat? He says that za’ah of ochlim isn’t like a liquid. Even if it makes
za’ah it is still not a problem.
Rambam (p23) Tumas Ochlim (7,4)- about a flow of water (netzok) and there is a
sheretz on the top of the stream and a kli tahor on the bottom, is it as if the sheretz is
touching the stream?
He says that netzok isn’t chibur (a connection) and there is a difference b/t a liquid and
thicker solid.
R’ Moshe- says that if you see za’ah then don’t rely on the Pr”M but if not then maybe
you can b’de’eved.

Mishkenos Yaakov- said that the Rosh might have overstepped his bounds. He claims
that the SHUT Revash said that you can’t bring za’ah into yoreh deah.
Rivash- says that za’ah is only assur when, if the food item that the za’ah came from is
nishtanen l’gamre (that it is totally changed and destroyed: ie to burn a sheretz), that the
food is still assur. You can only bring za’ah into maachalos asuros only if the za’ah
was nishtaneh that it would still be assur!
Ex: The ashes of a burnt sheretz isn’t assur, therefore the za’ah of a sheretz doesn’t have
an issur even in a za’ah state.
[But the S”A went with the Rosh.]

Za’ah and tanur

How can you use the oven for milk and meat acc. to the S”A and Rosh]?

R’ Moshe- R’ Moshe Shloss wanted to give heterim for ovens (far away, vents).
R’ Moshe concluded that we should be nervous about cooking a liquid of milk in an
oven, but not a davar ochel (based upon the Pr”M) and if you would actually see za’ah
then you have to be nervous even in a solid.

R’ Shlomo Kluger- discusses za’ah l’za’ah – the 2nd za’ah is going to bring down the
first za’ah and maflit previous za’ah.
It could be that the Rosh only meant- za’ah going straight into the food item, and
therefore there is no issur of za’ah l’za’ah and our chumros aren’t even necessary [in
terms of koshering an oven.]
Secondly, there is only a source that za’ah is mableah into the other food item, but no
source says that it would be maflit, so that is another tzad l’hakel.

R’ Shachter- there is a difference b/t za’ah and hevel, and we don’t have thick steam in
our ovens.
R’ Ben-Tzion Wosner (Sefer Or Yisrael)- that minhag Yisrael was never to worry about
za’ah. By microwaves he is more worried.
R’ Simon- says that today with vents it is like a tanur pasuach and we don’t have to be
worried about the za’ah. Says that belios are easier to create then being maflit, so we
can’t automatically extend the chumrah of the Rosh.
R’ Reuven Feinstein- said that a double covering is merely practical- “a backup.”

Gra (Mishlei): you can’t just read the halachah or you won’t remember it.
R’ Moshe said that you should learn gemara “ad hasof” which means gemara until you
get to the halacha. We need to learn the gemaros alebah d’hilchesah.